 Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for this epic debate, as we have with us tonight, Tom Jump and Lemon to debate the shape of the Earth. We are very excited to have you here, folks, and if it's your first time, consider hitting that subscribe button, as we've got a lot more debates coming up that we are very excited about. So, for example, in person on March 17th, we will have Destiny facing off against Vosh. That should be a big one, and that we're also very excited, folks. In case you haven't heard about this, we just announced recently that David Wood and Matt Dillahunty will be going face to face in a debate on Christian versus secular humanist morality. So, that is going to be a huge one in person from Austin, Texas on March 16th. And last but not least, I have to say it, folks, because we've got them here tonight. I mean, just super exciting, folks. If you haven't heard about it, we are going to have on that same, actually, the day after the Wood and Dillahunty debate, Tom Jump and his father, Steve McCrae, will be debating face to face. So, folks, what I'll let you know, though, if you have a question during today's debate, feel free to fire that question into the old live chat. I'll try to pull out each question, and we will try to ask as many as we can at the end of the debate. We're going to have a flexible 8 to 10 minute opening statement from each side followed by open conversation, then Q&A, of course. So, very excited. Want to let you know, folks, that these gentlemen, I have put both of their links in the description so that if you're listening and you're like, hmm, I like that. Great. You can find more where that came from at those links right down there in the little description box. So with that, very excited, folks. Given that Lemon is taking the affirmative today, Lemon, if you were up for starting first, we are happy to have you go first in getting the ball rolling. Does that sound good to you? Yeah, that sounds fine. Awesome. Yeah. The Earth tests and measures demonstrably flat and level. It appears that there has been no real scientific experiment with variable manipulation and variable confirmation, neither a compelling physical operation or human testimony to attest to anything close to a wall. It appears to be more of a philosophical assumption. And so people have tested the shape of the Earth and found it to conform more to the level of the shape of a level flat plane as opposed to a curved ball. When people look at the flat Earth from a historical standpoint and from what if any scientific experiments were done to verify its movement, its shape, or any of the elements of the globe narrative, they find a bunch of holes, which are very disquieting and very troubling for the globe narrative. So people are beginning to throw out the old cosmology for something a bit flatter and looking at the science that is available and the assumptions that were made from a totally different perspective. So it looks like there's a bit of a flat Earth awakening as it were. You bet. Thanks so much for that opening statement. Before we do hand it over to good old Tom Jump, do want to let you know, folks, hey, we have to give a huge thank you. We're, as you had seen earlier, the original title was supposed to be Billy Zig and Tom Jump. We hadn't heard from Billy my fault. I think it was, I'll take the responsibility. That was me. So not the fault of Billy. However, Nathan Thompson saved me by helping us by finding lemon and having lemon come in and debate last minute. So I want to say thanks to Nathan and Tom. The floor is yours. Thank you as well for being here. All right. So yeah, we know the world is round because we've been to space. We can see it. You can go to space. If you have enough money, you can just buy a ticket on whatever that Airlines is, the Virgin Airlines. Just go to space and look and see it. It's round. We can see it's round. Just like all the other planets and stars and moons and celestial bodies, they're round. None of them are flat. And the reason none of them are flatter because physics. Physics doesn't allow things to just be flat out in space for very long. It gets crushed and forms into a ball pretty regularly. Like we don't ever see flat things in space ever, pretty much. We see lots of round things pretty consistently. They're all round. Like just everything we see is just round. No flat things, though. I wonder why that is. So we know the world is round because we can see it. Anybody can go rinse a balloon, a weather balloon. You can tie a camera to it. Just have it go up really high. And you can actually just see the curvature. Anyone can do that. You can just pick whatever camera you want, fish eye lens, regular lens, to make sure that it's the standard quality you want and just attach it to a weather balloon. Just have it go up into space and you can see it. We know space exists because there's stuff in space, like the ISS, International Space Station, and the satellites, which we've sent there. And again, if you have enough money, you can send something to space if you want. Totally easy, doable. Anybody can do it. Countries, every country can do it, essentially, if you have just a rocket. Pretty stable. We know that the globe model makes testable predictions, like using general relativity to assess signals from satellites to Earth and how they change. If you don't use general relativity and don't take into account the curvature and distance of space time, you get the wrong answers. It gives you the wrong location. Whereas if you do, you say the world's round and general relativity is true, you get the right location. If you put that math in, it always works. You get the right location. And we know certain things like the Corleolis effect that you can make predictions about the trajectory of objects traveling through the atmosphere. And if you don't account for the Corleolis effect you miss, and if you do, you hit the target. So that's testable prediction verifies that the world is round. There's the certain kinds of pendulums you can build that if you just leave them there, they're going to start to turn on their own, make a big circle because we're on a globe and it's spinning. And you can tell you can build the same kind of thing in all the different locations on the Earth and you'll realize that the way it spins is only consistent with a globe. If they spin not all in the same way or at the same time and if the world was flat and they would all spin in a certain direction, but they don't, they all spin in different directions like if we're on a globe. So there are lots of ways to see that the world is a globe, but the easiest is we can just see it. And you can just buy a ticket and go to space and see it or you could rent a weather balloon and tie a camera and see it. And we know NASA is not lying about everything because there are things up there that have been built by NASA like the International Space Station. We know that we've been to the moon because there's a man-made refractor on the moon that you can like turn a laser into and see it reflect in any direction, which is as far as we know only possible given man-made refractors. So we have pretty conclusive evidence that the world is round in every possible respect. Thank you very much, Tom Jump. We will now go into the open conversation portion. Thanks so much gentlemen both for being here and the floor is all yours. Well, it is fascinating that you talk about the space narrative, but there appear to be holes in the space narrative. NASA in particular has been caught with various instances of what looks like chicanery and tricks, which make it very difficult to trust them and what images of any they're giving us. Case in point, there is a picture of Pluto. Apologies, can I interrupt you there for a second? So I can grant that NASA hasn't been honest, but I don't care like NASA doesn't matter. I can literally see the International Space Station with a telescope. I can see the satellites with a telescope. So there is space, we can see it. Who cares what NASA says? We can literally see space. Well, the thing is we need to call into question certain elements of their narrative. Water tanks used to simulate weightlessness space. I don't care about NASA. Like I can just grant NASA a dozen. Let's just say NASA is untrustworthy. Okay, we don't need to trust NASA. We can just buy a telescope at Target, look up and see the International Space Station, which is a giant floating piece of metal, somehow traveling at enormous speeds in space that we can water or in the sky that we can watch. And if it's not in space, that means it's in the atmosphere and the atmosphere would just rip it to shreds unless it's like magic or something. So we can see space, like who cares about NASA? We can literally see it. Well, the only element that's called into question in that with the laser test and other experiments showing lack of curvature is the existence of globe gravity as the propulsion mechanism for these satellites or whatever the hell they are for orbiting above the surface. Now, if globe gravity in particular is bunk with the surface being flat and level and unmoving, well then there has to be another propulsion mechanism. NASA is on record with satellites attached to balloons to propel them. And there are other things that could be going on up there with what we label as satellites. They could be floating in some sort of buoyancy giving fluid like with all the helium going up there. It's not too much of a stretch to say that there's a relative amount of weightlessness up there, whether or not it can be sustained remains the same. And then you could probably bounce signals off of the solid firmament if we are covered and contained by some sort of firmamental containment. It could just simply be land towers with that best, you know, a couple of repeaters up there to help boost the signal. Who knows, it could be in a plane. It could be a solar powered drone. It seems that the main element of this narrative that needs to be questioned at the most minimalist level is whether or not globe gravity is pulling these objects and compelling them around the ball. I never said anything about gravity. So that wasn't a part of my argument. My argument is just we can literally see the space station and the satellites there and they're not like aerodynamically shaped. They're these big boxes and cylinders that are apparently traveling at like thousands of miles an hour. And which we can't really do with a plane. So, and it's doing it consistently, like it doesn't stop. So if there was some alternative method of it keeping up there, they're gonna have to like refuel it at some point, which is kind of a problem since we can always see it. People can just keep watching it and you realize there's nothing there to refuel it. And if there's a balloon up there, again, something's gotta like refill the balloon with whatever is inside of it or maintain it. And it just doesn't happen. And there's nothing else around it that reflects any light. So it'd have to be like some kind of magic technology that we just don't know about yet, which is pretty unreasonable. We could or just be like it's in space, which is pretty reasonable given how much we can see about the universe. And I don't really know, like if there is a firmament it's gotta be pretty far away because we can see planets like pretty clearly with the telescope. So the firmament, it would be easier to attach it to Earth with a giant tower than it would to attach it to some firmament outside of the solar system and then try to attach it back to the ISS. So that doesn't work at all. So I mean, the fact that we can just literally see these things traveling at enormous speeds and that there are these weird ass shapes of just satellites, not at all aerodynamic in any way. If we assume that they're in some kind of a medium either a gas like the atmosphere or even worse an ocean or like a viscous fluid or something like you mentioned that wouldn't be possible given known physics. So I mean, if there's new laws of physics, maybe not that maybe, but I don't know of any. So that would be a pretty extraordinary assumption to add in. So I mean, just the fact that we can see it is pretty good evidence there's space there. Now what's causing it don't care. It doesn't make a difference. We can just literally see their space and we can see the planets behind it and we can see they're made of gas. So we can see that there's a ball shape, giant thing of gas that something is holding the gas to it in a ball shape. And so it's pretty reasonable to assume, oh wait we could be standing on one of those balls. It's not too unreasonable. Well, the thing is it becomes an unreasonable assumption because we don't shine and we don't move. No experiment has proved the earth moves one jot or one tittle, which appears to give credence to the ancient cosmologies which appear to have as a common thread, flat land, flat-ish land covered by some sort of covering or some sort of hemispheric or in some cases a total sphere covering of a firmament. And so you look at the Mayan, the Aztec, the Navajo, the Norse, these ancient cosmologies which appear to have a common thread with some embellishments here and there but the overarching phenomena that you seem to note is flat-ish land covered by some sort of firmament covering. We also have elves and sprites, electrical activity that appears to go up and appear to hit some sort of barrier at a certain altitude. And NASA's rockets conspicuously go up and appear to curve to avoid hitting something at a certain altitude. Once you divest yourself of this globe nonsense, you see a rocket curving. And sometimes, if you do... Wait, wait, wait, I'm not quite following what you're saying. Of the rocket, you don't see how it's curving with a rotating Earth. Wait, I don't understand what you're saying. You're saying the rocket's curving, they turn to go into the atmosphere. Yes. They don't curve to dodge. They keep going up. They don't like stop going up at any point. They don't go all the way up. And when they do, they appear to hit something or scrape something in some cases with the gas billowing out like they're hitting some sort of barrier or something. No, if they hit a barrier going that fast, there would be a massive explosion. Like that would be pretty obvious. It's not like they can just bump something and then keep going. That's not how rockets work. So if they appeared to hit something, they would explode instantly. They're going really, really fast. So they can't appear to hit something. That's not an option. If they hit something, everyone would know. So the reason they curve is just to align with the spin of the earth so that they can actually get to where they're going. I mean, they're not trying just to go straight up. It's like a plane. Like if you get on a plane to go to Los Angeles, you're not just gonna go straight up. There would be no point. You have to actually turn at some point to get to your destination. Not all rockets are just going straight up above NASA. They have to like go to the other locations that they're trying to get to. So obviously they have to turn at some point. I'm not sure why that would be indicative of there being a firmament that they turn because that's obviously, they're not just trying to go straight up. And again, I'm not sure what you mean when you say, there are definitely, when we send radio signals or whatever up, it's gonna hit the atmosphere is just how light works. You know, you don't see the stars when it's daytime because light reflects off the atmosphere. So yes, obviously things reflect off the atmosphere, but there's no solid there. We can know that because again, we can see stuff that was really far away like other planets like the moon, like the sun, like Saturn and Venus and Jupiter and Uranus and Pluto and Titan and all of these other planets. So if there was a firmament, it has to be so far out that nothing that humans have made could reach it yet. Like the farthest things that even NASA has said that they've built are like Cassini one and two, which just left the solar system, which would just be barely at where you claim or you could be the, the firmament could be. So there's no way there's a firmament that light is reflecting off of it, which is way too far away because we know that it can't be within the realm of the planet since the planets are actually traveling at those distances and we can literally see them. So I don't know what you mean when you say that there's a firmament thing there. Well, a lot of this is just letting go of one paradigm and seeing what else we could pick up, you know, seeing how we can look at this in another way. If you look at meteorites say, you could, you know, divest yourself of this, you know, globe, you know, narrative and think of it as say, chips off the old firmament. You know, they appear to begin eight to 100 miles up, 80 to 120 miles up. So perhaps there's some sort of, you know, solid covering there. Also from the word of God, the dude who made the thing, we note that the sun, moon and stars are within the firmament. So it's not too much of a jump assuming that the Bible is correct and, you know, God knows what he's talking about. That, you know, the firmament begins, you know, maybe 100 miles up where these meteorites are starting and then past there, you have the sun, moon and stars and other planets. So maybe we need to look into another cosmology and see exactly what NASA is up to. As you said before, you didn't talk about gravity, but gravity is implicit in your narrative. No, no, no, it's not. So, but you said the firmament begins 100 miles up. The moon is about 250,000 miles up. So there can't be a firmament there unless you think there's something behind the firmament which I don't think you do. I don't think, or do you think that there's a firmament and the moon and stars and things are behind the firmament and the firmament's like clear? Yeah, the sun, moon and stars are within the firmament according to the Bible. I go with, what was that? So the moon is inside of the firmament. So the firmament is farther away than the moon is. The sun, moon and stars are within the firmament. That implies that the firmament first and the sun, moon and stars beyond that, they'd be further than the firmament. Oh. The firmament start then the sun, moon and stars would be within the firmament beyond and further than where the firmament starts. Oh, I was misunderstanding. When you said that the sun, moon and stars are within the firmament, I thought it meant like there was the earth and the sun, moon and stars and then the firmament. So you think the firmament is actually before the sun, moon and stars? If I meant it the way that you were saying, I'd say they're under the firmament. I think that it's within the firmament. So firmament first, then sun, moon and stars beyond. Okay. And we appeared to have defense for that with the sun dogs, which look just like the sun shining through a curved glass layer. The pat explanation of ice crystals in the air being the reason for it is weak because if the ice crystals were doing any reflecting or any refracting, you would see an individual sun dog with each of those little ice crystals. It's just weak. I think you tend to see it in colder sections probably because you're in nice, stable temperature conditions with very little humidity where you can see the sun dog with the firmament very well. But if you look at it, it just looks like the sun shining through a curved glass surface. We have rainbows, we have sun dogs, we have meteorites which can be reinterpreted once you let go of the globe paradigm as solid chunks of the thing chipping off. And we have thunder. It reverberates, it clangs. It sounds like it's echoing inside of a cavity. We have the Schumann residence, which is basically the vibration of the earth. And when you have vibration, a lot of times that's like sound, frequency, a hollow cavity. And we even have a... You mentioned thunder, it reverberates. Yes, echoes. So the sound would hit the ground and then it would bounce up and hit the clouds and then it would bounce up and hit the ground. So you don't need a firmament for that. And if there was a firmament, it would echo at a much different rate. If there was a firmament a hundred miles up and the sound, we know what the speed of sound is, the 64,000 miles per hour or whatever, we can calculate how long the instances of the reverberation would be. And so we know that the reverberation caused by thunder is just bouncing off the ground and the clouds. There's no firmament, it's not a hundred miles away where the sound is reverberating from the clouds and the ground. So that doesn't help your case. Hold on, the speed of sound is what? I thought the speed of sound was like 7,800 miles per hour. That's the Mach 1. Mach 1. Probably, yeah. Just guessing. 343 meters per second. Be that as it may. You need to have the air to transfer sound. Well, you still have the wave anyway, even in a vacuum. It's just there's no medium to bring it to your ear. You need sound to bring it to your ear. So air down here, it may travel at different rates depending on how much air it's traveling through. Wait, you said the vibration would still be in a vacuum somehow? More than likely. I don't ascribe to atomism, and I don't believe in a vacuum, nothingness. There's probably a medium still in there, like ether or the zero point field. The notion of a vacuum separating matter from atomism is just a bunk, because that means that nothing can exist. And so the space narrative just falls apart on its face right there. There is no vacuum thing. There has to be some sort of a medium that is existent. Nothing cannot exist. That's a logical impossibility, and that destroys the brain. Right, space isn't nothing. That's right. Space is not nothing. No one in physics says space is nothing. That's not a thing. But we know that sound is the transition, the vibration caused by molecules. So the sound waves are just vibrations of molecules. So I don't know how the waves could exist if there's a vacuum that has no molecules, because sound is just the vibration of the molecules. And we know that the sound created by lightning, yeah, it is in air. You do need air for that to happen, but the air is all in between the clouds and the land. The vibration doesn't go to space. What you hear isn't reverberating off of the firmament, it's reverberating off of the clouds. And we can know that for a fact, because we can take the speed of sound and measure it, and then count the time in between the intervals of the reverberations of the lightning. And so we can know how far away whatever it is that it's revolving off of. And we know it's the clouds and the ground. So because of the time it takes. So it's definitely not a firmament which is causing that. Well, I've been in the fog, which is little more than a cloud on the ground. And the fog doesn't reflect my sound. So as far as I can tell, that's an unsatisfactory explanation. I would probably junk that for a better explanation, which is it's probably reverberating off of, say, a curved glass firmament. But that's just me. Well, if you're inside the cloud, then everything would reflect it. You'd have to have a difference in densities. You'd have to have a cloud and then a not cloud. And then the sound would have to hit the cloud to reflect back at you when you're not in the cloud. If you're in the cloud, then obviously it would all reflect equally in every distance and then be diffused by the cloud. So obviously, if you're in the cloud, it wouldn't do that. Well, there are other possibilities. I prefer to be a polytheist when it comes to these scientific theories, not just hold to one just in case this theory is missing some. All right, absolutely. I mean, in science, you're totally right there. In science, there's this thing called the problem of undetermination, which is that there's infinitely many ways to explain everything. Everything has lots of different ways to explain it. But the reason we can know one explanation is better than the others is that it makes testable predictions. We can say, if this theory is correct, then I can predict there's going to be this thing that's going to happen if we do this test. And if that happens, if we say, well, I'm going to predict this result and then we don't know what's going to happen and then we test it and it does happen, that's good evidence that whatever theory could predict that is the right one. And so if the other theories didn't make that same prediction, they're not as good. And the globe model does that a lot. Well, the thing is we've already had the atomism at the very least of the heliocentric model tested and found wanting. When they were testing the speed of galaxies, when they were testing the speed of galaxies, they found that they were spinning way too fast for Newtonian rules to apply. Basically, if these were solid matter swirling up there, it shouldn't be spinning this fast. It's spinning much faster than it normally would. Otherwise, all these forces would threaten to have the galaxy fall apart. So what did they do? Did they say maybe we're wrong about assuming that these things that we're seeing up in the sky are solid Newtonian things and maybe there's something like a theory matter that doesn't tend to take a form since our numbers aren't working out, what did they do? They kept their assumption and said, okay, we're gonna write a workaround. We're gonna write the cosmological constant and basically cobble up some dark matter that should be there to make these equations work, but we're really not seeing it. So that's where the rubber meets the road with these theories. The fork in the road where it's like, do we drop this theory because it's not working or do we write workarounds for it to maintain it? And it looks like because of materialism, atomism, and I just go ahead and say atheism, they're willing to write any materialistic workaround they have to to make these theories which aren't working somewhat work. Well, that's kind of how science works is that if you have a theory and it explains as much as you can, then you discover something new and then you have to make a new theory. And then if that new theory you assume, well, if it's right, then I'm going to make predictions that I don't know yet. And then we're going to test those other predictions which is like a different related thing. It's not just explaining the stuff you already know, it's saying, so here's something we don't know yet. We're going to make a prediction about how, what happens when we discover that? And if we can predict it correctly, then that's a good reason to believe this new theory is correct. It's not just explaining old information, like if we discovered that galaxies are spinning faster than they should be. That's new information we don't know yet. And then everybody gets to make a theory. So you can say a supernatural theory, you can say a non-physical theory, you can say an ether if you want to, that's totally fine. And then Einstein comes along and makes his general relativity theory and the dark matter theory, which I don't know why you're invoking the cosmological concept there, but the reason we go with that theory is because that theory makes predictions. It says, here's a reason why that happens, which has to do with the mass level in the galaxies. And there's some extra mass there. And we can test, well, if there's extra mass there, then the light curvature around the universe will actually be a greater amount than what we would expect if there was no extra mass there. There wasn't this hidden mass. And if we say if that is the case, then we should be able to test this and see that the curvature around the galaxies is actually more than what we expected. And when we tested that we found out, oh, that's right. So this new theory we came up with dark matter makes a prediction about something else we didn't know and it got the prediction right. So we didn't just explain away the old data, we used that new explanation to make a new prediction and this new prediction gave us new knowledge that we didn't have before. And that's why we believe that that was correct. If your theory did that, then your theory would be the better one, but it doesn't. It's the globe model that makes those future predictions. Well, the problem is it appears that there's little to no actual predictive power in this model. It's mostly just rhetoric. And it is philosophical framework for materialism, atheism and walking away from the ancient scriptures. They said that they were able to predict the existence of the planet Neptune. The thing that you don't hear about when you read the book, Kingsley Drone, this goes over a myriad of incorrect assumptions on which astronomy is based was they didn't predict the right period and they didn't predict the right orbit. They were off. They did get that there was a planet there. Okay, that's great, but their math was off. And so at that point, you see that the heliocentric model gives minimal predictability. If anything at all and at best, they just glommed the functionality of the past from geocentrism onto their new preferred model, but the emperor really has no quotes. Okay, but that wasn't the example. I didn't say anything about Neptune. I said, we could measure the curvature of light around galaxies to explain the dark matter. If dark matter is what's causing the galaxies to spin faster, then we can predict with a high level of accuracy, the amount that the light curving around the galaxies is going to curve. And we can get that exactly correct like 99.999 something percent correct. So it makes extremely exact predictions that we know are correct. And it makes predictions on all kinds of things not just those like general relativity made predictions about gravitational waves, which it got right. General relativity made predictions about signal transfer like to satellites in which it got right. And general relativity made predictions about the curvature of light around the sun, which it got right. There's lots and lots of predictions. I mean, that's all science does is make predictions. If they had limited predictive power, then it would be useless. That's the problem in quantum mechanics right now is that all the different interpretations make no new predictions. So no one cares. They're just useless in science. And so there's no consensus on which one is right because none of them make predictions. The reason we accept general relativity and the globe model is because it does. Those make tons of predictions, which we kept confirmed over and over and over and over again. They make them and get them right at a higher degree of accuracy than any of the alternatives. Like the flat earth model doesn't make predictions or if they does none of them have been confirmed, which is the problem, which is why no one accepts it. If you did, that would be evidence of the flat earth model. Well, the problem is general relativity endows space with physical properties by talking about space time curvature and saying that the speed of light, which was unchangeable in special relativity can change in general relativity. Now if space has properties, that sounds a whole lot like the ether. And it sounds even more like the ether in that space is physical and can curve. Curving is a physical operation. So there goes Adamism's demand for space to be a vacuum right there. Because if it can curve, it can straighten, it can curve, straighten, curve, straighten, curve, straighten and there you have a wave right there. And when the ether was accepted as a logical endpoint for all of these fields that we have everywhere back in Michelson-Morley's day, they tried to test the speed of the earth through the ether and this is where the rub is and why they abolished the ether. They couldn't get enough of an ether drag speed to justify the assumption of the earth moving through it. So Copernicanism was in danger. So they had a choice. They could accept the existence of the ether, but admit that it probably doesn't show the earth is moving in it best as geocentric or abolish the ether to maintain the atheism, the materialism, the Darwinism, the Marxism and all the other political ideologies that stem from Copernicanism unseating us from the center of God's creation and being obviously created, loved and having a purpose from God, not man. So they made a decision and they chose being. Well, no, I mean, Darwinism has nothing to do with cosmology. Cosmology does nothing for Darwinism. Like whether or not we're a ball or not doesn't change evolution. So I mean, those theories have nothing to do with each other in that sense. They're completely separate. But again, the reason they chose this was the Mickelson-Morley experiment was exactly that system that I explained earlier where we have something we don't know. You make predictions and you say, if my theory is correct, here's what the results are gonna be. And they had two different hypotheses. They had the ether hypothesis, which I really liked actually if I was really interested in hypothesis. And then they had the more, the different hypothesis that there isn't an ether, that there is no thing. And they said, well, if there's an ether then we can expect to see this level of change. And when they tested it, they found it didn't occur. So that means their theory was wrong. Now maybe there's a different ether theory that could come up with. You can always just change the theory to make it fit. It's called Akkot reasoning. And it's part of the problem of undetermination. You can always make a theory fit the data. The problem is that their theory, what they thought was going to happen got it wrong. They looked at the data. They said, given this data, we can explain this using the ether that has these properties. And if it has these properties, then here's a different thing that it's going to do that we're going to see and they didn't see it. So that means their ether theory was wrong. Now maybe there's a different one you can make up. You can always make up a new one. But the theory that got it right was general relativity. It made the predictions and got it right. Now if you had come up with an ether theory that is a different ether theory and you can predict a new thing that we haven't discovered yet and say, if my ether exists, here is a prediction that we don't know yet that no one in physics knows yet. I can predict it and we can test it and we discover that you're right and that's evidence of your model. You win. You would now have the best model in physics because you predicted something no one else can. But if you can't do that, well then the last theory that could is the one that's right. It's the best theory and it's the general relativity model. It was the one that can make the predictions. None of the other ones can. The alternatives can't. That's why general relativity is accepted as the best because it's the only one that does it. In science, it's just all we do is accept whichever model makes the testable prediction. We don't care how crazy it is. Like when you say that space-time bending is contrary to materialism, well, no, it's not because space-time is material. It is a kind of thing in the general relativity model. Now, maybe you wanna explain space-time as a non-material thing and that's totally fine. You can do that, but then your new theory has to make new predictions. The predictions Einstein made where he said space-time is material, those work. So his theory is the one we accept because he could use it to make predictions. The fact that you can explain it in a different way doesn't matter unless you can make new predictions. Well, the favorite was turning the ether into space-time because they had to abolish it because of its geocentric implications. It appears what they did was they changed the data to match the theory, namely the theory of Copernicanism. They needed 30 kilometers per second of ether drift to even begin to justify the notion of the earth moving through the ether. Now, they did get a positive ether drift. Unfortunately, it was too low. It was eight to 15 kilometers per second, if that. So they had way too little ether to justify the earth moving through it. At best, it was swirling gently over an unmoving earth. So they had a problem, dry Copernicanism or admit the ether exists and dry Copernicanism or abolish it and come up with a totally different cosmology with space-time and all this other stuff. Despite the fact that gravity basically stole the ether. At first, it was pulling to the center of mass and then it became the curvature of space-time. Where the hell was that? Gravity was predicated on anatomism. It was predicated on pulling masses away from the void and toward a center of gravity and now the void itself, space, is endowed with physical properties where it can curve. This is theft. This is just ridiculous. They just got rid of it just to avoid having to drop Copernicanism and that's bad sign. It has nothing to do with Copernicanism. Again, people who believed in the ether, they don't really care one way or the other, they just wanted to prove the ether and so they made a test and they got it wrong and so they dropped the ether because their test was wrong. But general relativity, like in science, you can make up whatever you want. Any theory, doesn't matter how crazy it is. Bending, space-time, magic fairies, no one cares. You can make up anything you want, including a flat earth with an ether, a Bible-driven cosmology. If you can do that and make predictions, then you're right. The problem is that you can't. The reason we accept the Copernicanism model or the geocentric model or the heliocentric model and general relativity and the fact that the world is a ball is because those made the predictions and got it right. We don't actually care if the world is flat or not. It doesn't make a difference. Most people on the planet don't know anything about the Bible. They don't care. They're just doing science because it makes predictions. So they're not rejecting it to try and fit the biblical model. Many of them believed in the biblical model. Many of them adopted Christianity. Many of them were people who took the Bible literally and then they lost their faith because the facts proved it wrong. It's not to try and maintain a belief in atheism because they were Christian and then they found out that the Christian model failed and then they left Christianity. So it's not to maintain atheism. Most of them were and still are Christians. So that doesn't make any sense. And again, the only reason we accept the globe model is because it makes predictions. That's it. That's the only reason. It doesn't have anything to do with the Bible. We don't care about the Bible. All we care about is what makes predictions. And if it makes predictions, it doesn't matter how crazy it is even if it's the biblical driven model or Hinduism, if it makes predictions and gets them right, that's what we accept. No exceptions. Don't care if it's the Bible or Satanism or Hinduism or anything, if it makes predictions, we accept it without exception. But these predictions aren't really panning out. Even Einstein had to change special relativity outright denied in Ether. That was another thing I wanted to bring up on. I didn't change and go back and back pedal for general relativity was said light speed could change and space had properties. Well, no, there was no change there. So, so, so, so, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. So, so, so, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop. You can bear it out a liar. No, no, there was no change there. He didn't change general and special relativity. Those are specifically different things for different instances. They're still both correct. There was no change there. Like I don't know what you're talking about when you say that. How can you have the special and general when in special light is the fastest thing in the universe? And in general, light speed can change due to the curvature of space time. Because special relativity. How does those two things gel with each other? In special, Ether is denied, which basically says space has no properties. And in general, space can curve giving it properties. These are unresolvable. No, they're different things. It's like, if I say light when, like I said, a baseball when thrown through the air is going to travel at a different speed than the baseball when thrown through the ocean. I mean, well obviously, because there's more resistance. Special relativity is light when it has no resistance. General relativity is light when it has resistance. Those are the differences. There's no contradiction. They're not incompatible. They're just- I would only have no resistance in a vacuum assuming a vacuum can exist. That says philosophically that nothing can exist. At that point, the mind is destroyed because nothing can exist and something can exist. No, again, stop, stop, stop. So special relativity just says this is how light would act if it was in a perfect vacuum. He never said it was in a perfect vacuum. He never said light actually travels at this exact speed at any point because it's never in a perfect vacuum. It's always in space time. So the point of general relativity is just for the pure math of a stable reference point of what light would do if not being interacted in anything else, like Newton's law of motion and object in motion remains in motion. Is there actually an object in motion that is never going to be interacted with? Well, no, obviously, because things hit it, but that's just an abstract idea to use as a model. That's special relativity. It's not actually a thing. You're not actually saying light actually travels at this speed in space at some point. Obviously it's going through space time, which is why he created general relativity. The general relativity is the pragmatic application. Special relativity is the idealized, this is what it would do if nothing was interacting with it. Well, in that case, if there was a vacuum, but you're saying there's not a vacuum, why are we holding onto this atomistic notion of a vacuum? If a vacuum can't even exist, even that is untenable. I mean, another thing that is untenable, this stuff destroys the mind and keeps it from being able to do other logical science because the mind is in space at all. So your definition of a vacuum is absolutely nothing. No one in physics defines a vacuum that way. No one in physics has a vacuum is absolutely nothing. So when you say, why do people say there's a vacuum? Well, their definition of a vacuum is very different than your definition of a vacuum. So it's a vacuum then. No, in physics, a vacuum is something different than what you're thinking. When you think of a vacuum, you think of absolutely nothing. There is so absolutely nothing. Okay, so what's a vacuum? It's one physics that has a technical definition, but it's about the amount of energy in space time as space time is actually a physical thing. So it is actually a thing. So if there's energy in the vacuum, why is it called a vacuum? If there's something in the vacuum, why is it called a vacuum? That's just how physics gives things names. Like physics called an atom, like certain things were called an atom and atom in Greek is defined as the smallest constituent part. But then we discovered atoms were actually made of protons and neutrons and electrons, but we didn't call it something new just because we discovered that our naming system was wrong. Science makes up new names all the time. So we assumed it was a vacuum that was originally named in the Greek essentially that there was just nothing that's there. We got proved wrong, we just kept the name vacuum because that's how science works. Like we call the universe the universe, which again, just using the, the etymological basis of the term means everything that exists. Then we discovered, oh wait, there's these multiverses. There's others could be other universes, but we didn't just change the name of the universe. We just adopted a new label. So in science, we adopt labels that don't necessarily match 100% like Adam and universe and vacuum all the time. There's no, it's not, it's not meant to mean the vacuum doesn't mean there's literally nothing there. No one in physics believes that. So there's stuff in the vacuum. So a vacuum can suck. A vacuum can do stuff. A vacuum has properties. Yes, yes. Okay. Why don't we just go with the ether? The vacuum tends to have a connotation of a void with nothing there. Why was that label when that connotation is incorrect? Because that's just how science works. So again, in science, you get to make up whatever name you want for whatever it is you're talking about. So when scientists, like when people came up with the idea of atoms, like I think it was, Ludwig Boltzmann was one of the original proponents of the atomic theory and discoverer of the atom. He called this the atom because he thought it was the smallest constituent part, that there was nothing smaller. This is the base form of everything, which is just what the word atom means in Greek. But then we discovered there are smaller things. But why do we still call protons and neutrons and electrons atoms? Because that's just what he called them. Like we don't actually care if the connotation isn't correct. It's just the name he called them when he discovered them. So we just keep the name because he discovered them. So that's what we do. So when people talk about the vacuum, it was originally meant as an empty kind of nothingness like what you're describing. But then we discovered it's not just like we did for atom. And we just still call it the vacuum because that's just what they do in physics. It's not like it matters one way or the other. It just, we just discovered that what we called the vacuum has these other properties. Just like what we called the atom is actually made of smaller things. There's no contradiction there in science. It's just how science works. Well, the thing is this is inconsistent science. There's no overarching philosophy to really even guide this. Even the protons and neutrons and electrons that you're talking about, as far as I've heard, they haven't been consistently proven. They were theorized, but you can't give me a jar of electrons. You can't give me a jar of protons. You can't give me a jar of neutrons. They're just theorized. And even the people that made our electrical systems, thymebs, Tesla, even Faraday and others wouldn't even ascribe to the electron quat and electron like pebble particle. They thought in terms of fields. They thought in terms of not this atomistic pebble but a field that was basically everywhere. Even Tesla referred to the firmament by name in one of his quotes. So this atomistic concept appears to chain the brain to this notion of this pebble that we're looking for that may not even exist. Perhaps we need a much more flexible paradigm like say the fluid ether, which disproves that the earth is moving and comes from another seemingly more geocentric conception. Well, if you can make Tesla predictions with it, then go ahead and we'll accept it. The problem is that it doesn't. So the point of the proton and the neutron is well, we can actually give you a jar full of neutrons. It's called a neutron star. We have actually separated protons and neutrons and we can actually put all of the protons in one jar and all the neutrons in the other jar. Electrons are more like waves than particles. They're not necessarily particles. So those would be more like waves but we can actually demonstrate protons and electrons and neutrons and neutrinos. Like we can physically demonstrate them so that you can see them and give you a jar full of them if you want. We can do that. I doubt that. I would probably say that that best they are overlapping waves of the fluid vortex ether and you're just seeing whirlpool vortices that occasionally look like this particle, that particle proton here, a neutron here, a lepton here, a quark here. Just temporary manifestations of a dynamic fluid ether at best. How is that different from the basketball? How's what different than a basketball? Like a proton or a neutron, you said that it's like a fluctuation of the ether or whatever. Vortices, whirlpools in the ether medium. Temporary whirlpools, vortices at best but nothing that necessarily has a permanent essence as this marble of a proton, neutron or electron, a flexible manifestation if that. Well, protons are made of other things like quarks just like basketballs are made of protons but we still consider basketballs to be solid objects. They're not like fluctuations of vortices and spacetime or the ether. So I mean, how is a proton or a neutron different than a basketball? Well, you need to put it in a jar first for your atomistic conception to even work. As far as I can tell, nobody can put a jar of electron pebbles in a jar, make a jar of proton pebbles, neutron pebbles, quarks, leptons. As far as I can tell, nobody's ever done that. So the atomism that your theory is predicated on is highly theoretical and specious as far as I can tell. No, no, we can literally, we can take protons and neutrons and put them in jars. We've done that. We can do that. Really? Yes. How many did they put in a jar? I'll just Google it and see if I can give you a number. I have no idea. Sure. I just wanna make sure that your interpretation of what happened is actually correct with the conception because I frankly don't believe that that's ever happened. I challenge atomism totally as this, you know, like Ken Wheeler said, a cult of bumping particles. Well, it's called atomic. You know, the fundamental particle that underlies everything when maybe you need to look for a fluid flexible ether medium thing everywhere. It's called fusion and fission. That's the name of the process. And we have these things called fission and fusion reactors where we literally do this. So we literally tear them apart and separate them and put them in jars. They're just giant fields of, what is it? Plasma, because they're so hot, we can't actually put them in a jar. They melt the jars. So we do put them in plasma jars. Yeah, we do actually do this. It's called fission and fusion. So the jar is the plasma field medium? Yeah, so you use plasma, you superheated particles in order to contain other particles that are doing the interaction. So it's like the jar. It's not actually a physical jar because it would melt like glass or something. So we use the, we create a plasma outside of the interaction to contain the interaction and it's the jar. Ah, fascinating. I have to say it. Okay, you just Google atomic fission, atomic fusion reactors. Well, getting back to the shape of the earth being probably something flat and not curved. There are other ways that math in particular is not the globe's friend. Supposedly we're on a globe. Did you say math? Yes, math. We're supposed to be on a globe of 24,901 miles in circumference at the equator, which would at the equator lead to roughly eight inches per mile squared of curvature. But that's only at the equator. At different latitudes, you have a circle band of latitude that's even smaller. So you get even more dramatic curvature per mile squared up to and beyond three feet per mile squared at 80 degrees latitude. And also at the equator, you have 69 miles per degree but at say 80 degrees latitude, you have 15 miles per degree. So you would see dramatic changes in curvature depending on whether it's curving this way or curving that way. But we don't appear to see that. We don't even appear to see prima facie evidence of curvature. The horizon is flat. Nothing seems to tilt forward like it would over a ball. We don't see any curve to the horizon. And when we do laser tests in long distance infrared imaging, we can see much further and longer than we should with no hump of earth curvature in the way. We see up to 1,000 miles with infrared. And when we do long distance laser tests like 20, 30 miles, there's no globe hump of earth curvature in the way blocking lasers that are loaded the ground hitting another target. So we're not seeing anything that is matching this globe assumption. And if we're not a ball, ball making orbit making heliocentric gravity is in serious jeopardy. Well, we do actually see curvature pretty consistently everywhere. It's not the same everywhere because the globe isn't an actual perfect ball. It's an oblique spheroid. So it is different in different places. It's not a perfect ball but that's not a problem at all. I don't know why that would be a problem. So, but we can actually test all of those things and see, yeah, this is perfectly consistent with the global model because again, the global model makes the testable predictions that are right. So we can say if we live on a globe and if this is the constant of the density of the gas and the curvature of the light around the gas and the level of the trajectory of the refraction then we can predict exactly what it's going to look like. And the global model gets that right every single time. So I mean, every one of the predictions that we make and of that what we see when we look at the horizon and when we point a laser or do a infrared test or do any kind of infrared or thermal testing of any kind, the global model gets it right everywhere at all times in all places, 100% anywhere in the world. If you take the global model math, it will predict exactly what you see and you'll get the right answer. So the fact that you don't anticipate that's what you would expect. It doesn't make a difference because that's exactly what we expect on the global model. So it seems like what you're doing is you're saying, if you assume that the world is a globe then you would assume that you can't see that far when really if you can because of just how light refracts in the global model. But the reason we know or we believe that the global model is correct is because it makes testable predictions which are correct. It doesn't just, it's not just able to explain all the stuff we already know and we already see. It explains the stuff we don't know yet and can get it right. That's why the global model is better than the flat earth model. The flat earth model can't do that. It's never done that. In science, it's always about what are the future predictions? What can you, what new information can we gain with this model? And if this model can make future predictions then it's the best model. Nothing else can compete. It wins hands down. The global model does this and we've talked about a whole bunch of different instances especially from Einstein in our conversation so far but you haven't visited any kind of predictions that the flat earth model can make and that's kind of the problem is that in science we need those to be able to show that one theory is right. Like if you have, if you see a cup fall over like there are lots of ways to explain how the cup fall or maybe somebody bumped the table, maybe it was the wind, maybe it was a squirrel or bird or fairies, leprechauns, invisible aliens, it could be anything. But the way we find out which one is correct is that you say, if my hypothesis is correct here is something I'm going to predict that we don't know yet and we can go check and see and if we get it right that's a good reason to believe this explanation is the right one. And the global model does that and it gets it right every time we check but I don't think the flat earth has ever done that. Well, the thing is it appears it's more accurate to say all of the predictability was from a geocentric cosmology where at the very least the earth was at the center in a stable zone of observation. Heliocentrism would actually be expected to give you less predictability, not more because now you have the earth moving along with everything else and you don't know where the center of mass is to make any prediction in absolute space with everything moving. You would have less predictability, not more. So as far as I can tell, the predictability is rhetorical but not actual and most models act as if it is a flat level plane. You'll see it in avionics, model made as though it were a flat level plane. You'll see it in government documents even from NASA even, model made with the assumption of a race basically as if there was a flat level plane even refraction, which is used to explain why we're seeing much further than we should be over a ball effectively gives you a refractive K value which makes the radius of the earth larger. And for all intents and purposes flattened it out. And so logically you can see the truth being approach that is probably flat by this behavior alone. And even in the black swan photo that's been making the rounds and flatter circles there's a picture of two oil rigs where you can see the horizon beyond the two oil rigs 10 miles away. And the observer is about one foot off of the ground five feet, I think they say it's five feet, one foot effective or whatever but basically the horizon is way too far out even for these globe predictions that you're counting because by the formula 1.22 times the square root of the height in feet above the surface that should give you the distance to the horizon roughly on your globe model which would make the horizon no more than one to three miles out but you see the horizon 10 miles out. No amount of fraction that I know of is gonna move the horizon from two to three miles out out to 10 miles in the black swan photo. So your model can't even predict that. So every photo, every. Left and right, what refraction does this? What are their numbers? They throw out some random refraction value that is way too high for the prevailing conditions. It's just ad hoc nonsense. There's no predictability here. This is just rhetoric. Again, again, we've already talked about the predictions that have been made. Like the curvature of light, the dark matter predictions, Einstein's general relativity, the curvature of space time. You mentioned Neptune, the orbit of Mars, the bending around light around the sun. Those are predictions. Every single one of them. Those are unbelievably detailed, excellent predictions that no other model made and they could go where they were right. And there's lots and lots of other ones. So every picture ever taken on Earth, all of the things we see have all been predicted accurately by the heliocentric model. All the predictions are explained by just the globe Earth model correctly. Every single one of them. But the problem is when you first said that the heliocentric model you said we would expect to have less predictability. Now I don't know if that would be true or not, but if we grant it, if we expect the heliocentric model to have less predictability, but in reality, we get more predictions from it, that would be even better evidence that the heliocentric model is correct, because it's the one that gives us the predictions. And if we would expect it to give us less and it's the only one giving us predictions, that's really good evidence that it's the right one. Like as far as I know, there are no predictions on the flat Earth model. Like you can't predict anything new on it. Like you're having, maybe you can, I don't know. But you've never, no one has ever used the flat Earth model to make here's a prediction of a test we can do to get a result and then get that right. And there's lots you could do. Like for example, you could say, if we buy a plane and fly it over the Atlantic or something, we'll get to the edge of the Earth or to the firmament or something. And if you did that, the experiment, you got it to work, that would be great evidence of the flat Earth, but no one's done it. Like if you said that the firmament is at this distance 100 miles or whatever, and you bought a weather balloon and you sent it up 100 miles and it hit the firmament, that would be great evidence of the firmament, but no one's done it. I mean, that's all you need to do is just say, I predict the firmament is going to be here. Here's a test how we can verify that, do the test, verify the firmament and boom, flat Earth model takes over the world. But no one's ever done that. No one's ever had any successful predictions with the flat Earth. Well, people have done that and Rocket did appear to hit something 70 miles out over Arizona, but they're coming up with, you know, what sound like these weak excuses. Talking about D, yo-yo spin and all this stuff stopping the rocket, frankly, as far as I can see, these rockets may not even be fully solid. They may be client, you know, fluffy balloons with a whole lot of rocket fuel behind them because I saw a old 1950s black and white photo of a rocket crumpling like it was a balloon and even Owen Benjamin was looking at a launch from a recent rocket launch where basically you see the rocket bobbing up and down in ways that a solid rocket never would do with its tensile strength, probably falling apart from this heavy rocket bobbing up and down the way you see it in the photo. It looks like a balloon. So I think we've been duped. We've been heavily duped and we really need to see what the hell is going on with these models. What are these scientists really talking about? Are they giving us real science? Or are they giving us a bull to make a lie out of the scriptures, walk away from the Bible and basically prop up man's vain doctrines? We really need to make sure that we're not getting played here. Right, right. I agree. And the way we do that is with testable predictions. Like that's all, that's the only way. The only way to verify truth is can you make testable predictions? Can you say if my theory is right, here's something we don't know, we're gonna predict it and if we get it right, that's good evidence. Like when you mentioned the rockets bending like a balloon, you see the same effect with an arrow. If you take an arrow and you shoot it out of a high pressure, like 80 pound bow and you videotape it in slow motion, you can see the same wobbling like a balloon in the arrow just because of the rate at which the force travels in the bidding rate of the arrow. And the same thing applies to metals and the tensile strength of the rocket because it's being shot so fast and so powerfully by the rocket on the back end. You would see the same fluctuation so it's gonna look like a balloon. There's not a problem there. That's just how solids work when you shoot them really fast. But again, I agree with what you said where you said we have to find a way to make sure they're not deceiving us and just either going away from the Bible if that was their motive, that's not a good motive. Like it doesn't matter if the Bible was true or not, all that matters is what is the truth. And the way we discover the truth is testable predictions. And as far as I know, again, the Flat Earth model hasn't made any. Like if you could find us, give me a location like a satellite GPS location I can go to and touch the firmament, you win. Flat Earth is win. You've done it, you've defeated the globe. Just give me a GPS location where I can go on a boat or a plane or whatever and just touch the firmament wherever it goes on the earth or show me the edge of the earth, you win. I mean, it's super easy. Like doing that would be unbelievably easy. Copernicus could have done that on his boat. Anybody could just do that if the Flat Earth model is true and you win, but no one's done it. And I mean, that's kind of a problem because there's such an easy way to verify Flat Earth. And if you could do it, you would win all kinds of money and fame for doing this because you just topple every world scientist ever. And you'd be like the greatest genius of all time but no one's done it. I mean, it's like if you said there's a billion dollars on sixth street, all you have to do is go pick it up. But apparently no one's gone and pick it up. I mean, I'm not really gonna believe that because it's so easy to show that that would be true. You just go give me a, just go buy a Ferrari. The same thing applies to Flat Earth. It's so easy to show if the Flat Earth was true. Just give me a location to go touch the firmament but no one's done it. Why do you think that is? Well, I personally go with the Hebrew cosmology Flat Earth. That's just me. There's other models out there. But I go with that with some sort of AE Gleason map on top. Now there are zones that satellites do not cover in the North and South Pole that are conspicuously missing on some of the maps. So assuming we have all of the pieces of land accurately mapped, I really don't assume that but assuming that's the case, the North Pole would be in the center with the continents radiating out surrounded by the oceans with a ring of Antarctic ice about 40 to 60,000 miles in circumference. If the voyages of Captain Cook are to be believed where he clocked over 40 to 60,000 miles over three years of trying to circumnavigate Antarctica with all of its voyages. So that alone makes a different model where there's more land beyond with possibly a firmament touching down somewhere beyond Antarctica. There's an Antarctic treaty that prohibits any non-government sanctioned exploration of the continent. You have to go through government bodies that are signatories to the treaty before you can go down there. You can't take scientific equipment. You can't take stuff without their permission and it really makes exploration difficult to see if say there's a firmament touching down past here more land or whatever. If say meteorites are chips off the old firmament or whatever, they begin 80 to 120 miles up that would put the firmament around that far away at I guess the highest point maybe higher with the sun, moon and stars in the firmament according to the scriptures with waters above under the heavenly throne of God. And then the land would be thick with underground caverns on pillars on top of a watery deep and unmoving geocentric stationary with the sun, moon and stars moving over and around us and probably smaller than the earth. So I just Googled flights to the South Pole. You can buy them just like flights to anywhere and just go exploring, bring your own stuff. They have gear there, you can just rent it like a motor of any type of vehicle you want with as much fuel as you want. And you can just go wherever you want. They're not gonna stop you. It's not like the government has stuff there to stop you, they don't have bases there. They're just, the treaties are just for other governments. They don't actually care if people go there for any reason, you can do whatever you want. So I mean, you just buy a ticket. Yeah, you can go there, but you're gonna be prohibited as to what you can do there. You go where the government tells you. I doubt you would be able to explore the 40 to 60,000 mile rim as it were. Well, you don't need to explore the entire rim. You just need to go out in any one direction. So I mean, you could just rent a truck, any of the trucks used there and just drive and get as much fuel as you want and just drive in any one direction straight to find the firmament. And that would be all you would need. And they're not gonna stop you. Like they're not gonna stop you from renting a truck to drive. They don't have like outposts every five miles that would take literally everyone if your numbers are correct, they would have to like everyone on the planet to hold hands to just stop you from going around anywhere on the South Pole, which doesn't make any sense. So all you have to do is buy a ticket to the South Pole, rent a truck, get some gas and just drive to the firmament. And you've proven everyone wrong, you win. You would get paid millions of dollars for that. One sec, before anybody goes to the South Pole, we are going to let you know folks, it's a two minute warning before we go to Q and A. So gentlemen, we got about two minutes left at some point. One of you would make my job easier if you'd be willing to give the other the last word as it's open conversation. And so we are very thankful to have you guys here. And we definitely have a lot of awesome questions for you. Yeah, I just wanted to mention one thing. Like you can get a solo expedition to the South Pole, just go alone and rent a truck. I mean, that's a, the government doesn't stop you. They literally just give you the option to buy tickets for that, just go alone. So I mean, they're not gonna stop you. Well, the main thing is we're not getting consistent threads of this narrative, the laser test and the thousands of miles of infrared show flat level land. The, any obstruction that we do see can easily be explained by perspective alone with the top part of your vision, essentially sandwiching into the bottom part of your vision right at your eye line. Stuff above your eye line appears to come down and converge, but no further. Stuff below your eye line appears to come up and converge sandwiched together just like the train tracks, but no further. If it went past the midpoint of your vision, you would not be able to make spatial relationships out of the world at all, because potentially something that's above you physically would appear to be below you and something that's below you physically would appear to be above you and vice versa. When this stuff sandwiches, you could interpret it as globe curvature obstructing what's in the way, but really it may just be the top and bottom part of your vision, sandwiching. And since your eye tends to wanna deal with things in a symmetrical fashion, it's gonna want even convergence up and down. If you're six feet, you're gonna get even convergence six feet up from your eye line, six feet down from your eye line, about three to six miles out, but no further. And anything that's taller like a 100 foot skyscraper or a huge mountain, we'll just have to set into that convergence zone where everything smushes down to a horizon line beyond because the space isn't available. Just logic and optics right there destroy the globe. Well, I mean, again, we can just, you can always explain all of the past evidence by any explanations called the problem of undetermination. In order to prove a hypothesis correct, you need to explain something new. So the fact that you can explain all of this other stuff that the globe has already explained doesn't do anything for your hypothesis. Just go find the farm and you win. That's all you need to do. And it shouldn't be that hard. It'd be much, I mean, the amount of money that flat earth are spending to do all these tests, just buy a trip to South Pole and rent a truck, you could prove everyone wrong pretty easily for less money and less time than all of these other wacky experiments that are being performed about looking at long distances which are also already explained by the globe. All you need to do is just find one thing that the globe, that one prediction that the flat earth makes that the globe doesn't like the firmament, find that and you win or go to the Antarctic and just drive around the equator and see if you can get like from Australia to South America, they're pretty close to it, then you win. If you could do that, the problem is that you can't. I mean, there are so many really easy ways to prove the flat earth right, but no one's done it. You always go with these really obscure vision tests which are already explained by the globe model. I mean, to prove it hypothesis right, you need something new and it would be really easy to do that on a globe model. So, I mean, if I believed it, I would just immediately go to the South Pole and try to find the firmament because then I'd be a millionaire overnight, but no one does it. Whichever one of you is ready to give the last word to the other, we will go into the Q and A. Are you, do you feel okay with wrapping up and going to the Q and A lemon? I'm ready for Q and A. Me too. Gotcha. All right. Well, thank you very much, folks. Excited to read through your questions and comments. It's always a good time and so also want to let you know, whether you be flat earth, globe earth, Christian, atheist, Republican, Democrat, we hope you feel welcome here as we are a nonpartisan platform. So, we do want to welcome people, no matter what walk of life you're from, there's always debating and a little bit of joshin' going on in the live chat. Please don't take it personal. We are pretty laissez-faire about the live chat. So, sometimes it gets a little brutal, a little bit crazy. Well, I don't know what that was, but, I'm just excited about that. No, that's okay. So, with that, very excited, folks. We will be jumping right into these questions and so thanks so much. First one is from T-jump, no, that's some, from TwitchLokens16. Thanks for your super chat. They say, T-jump wins again. You have a fan out there, Tom. Next, Michael Dresden, thanks for your super chat. Who says, Tom Jump already lost. Jesus. Oh boy, all right. Steven Steen, thanks for your super chat. He says, Tom is NASA Black Sight Counter, or Tom is NASA Black Sight Counter Ops. Yep, that's what my shirt is, the NASA Black Sight Counter Ops, that's right. Very nice. Michael McCaffrey, thanks for your super chat. Says, thanks for everything you do, James and me and MDD, thanks so much. That means a lot, Michael. Always encouraging to have you here. Appreciate the kind words. Mickey Rush, thanks for your super chat. He said, we legally stand on sidewalk with signs during recess. Gotcha, it's legal. Thanks for that. C-4 Mockingbird, you said the earth is measurably flat, like the P-O-S, oh okay, piece of poop, Nathan Thompson says, who and when measured it to be flat? Thanks for that super chat, C-4. The FECore did a 25 mile laser test and found that it was flat and level and were able to hit a target that was no more than like 10 feet off the ground when there should be a hump of earth curvature in the way. As you know, you get roughly eight inches per mile squared of curvature, at least at the equator, where the amount of curvature would be the very least and the best case for the ball standpoint, it would get worse and worse if you go to different latitudes east-west with up to three feet per mile squared of curvature up at 80 degrees latitude, but eight inches per mile squared is a fairly decent approximation, what you should see at the equator. So you take 25 miles over the distance of Lake Balaton where they did the laser tests, square that to get like 625 or something like that, multiply that times eight inches and that should give you the amount of curvature, which would curve away from you on the target, but they hit this target with the no hump of earth curvature in the way. There are other long distance photographic tests where they can see a laser from far off that should be obstructed by a hump of earth curvature. And I think there is the record photo in I wanna say Kanagou, France or something like that from like 200 and something miles away or something like that with line of sight for the photo, but there's a bunch of other flat earth-ish observations and events that can't be explained on the pagan ball as it were. Gotcha, thanks very much, appreciate that. And also Stephen Steen, thanks for your other super chat, you freak. He says, show kids you love them, teach them flat earth. Very nice, Stephen. Well, it's a free country. You can do what you like, Stephen. Angel Garay, thanks for your super chat. They asked, can you show a pic or a picture of the firmament? There's a grainy photo of Antarctica. You can see something in the sky that looks like it has some sort of, kind of like a texture. It could be smoke, might just be the air, but some people say it's possible, firmament pictures or whatever from Antarctica. Otherwise, there are people who have taken pictures of the sky during the day with the sun and they'll show like a texture to the sky. It could just be the camera, could just be some dirt or something, but some people show what appears to be a textured kind of barrier up there. There's different photos here and there that you can find on YouTube land about it, but it's interesting to see some of the bread crumbs that lead people to think that there's some sort of firmamental covering up there. Gotcha, thanks so much. I appreciate it. Next up, Super Chat from Kit. Lemon crushes your satanic, atomistic paradigms once again. Thanks for that, Kit. Praise God. Andrew Handelsman, thanks for your Super Chat, who says, sorry I'm late, James, here's my late V. That's nice of you, Andrew. Thanks for your support. Steven Steen, thanks for your Super Chat, who says in the beginning God created James Coons. Genesis 1-1, that's a strange man out there, that's Steven. Mickey Rush, thanks for your Super Chat, says Red Pill the Youth, hashtag Nathan Thompson, greatest of all time. Thanks for that. Colin Dresser, thanks for your Super Chat, says any evidence of rocks orbiting in a vacuum as fact? Yes, we can see them. Gotcha. Withs it, gets it. Thanks for your Super Chat, first timer. They say, quote unquote, T-jump, has begged the question the entire time. Begging the question is using one of your premises in the conclusion or assuming that your conclusion is true to make an argument, but I haven't done that. So the point of the testable predictions is that, so you take a hypothesis, you think it's true and make a prediction. And then if the prediction is right, then you verify your hypothesis, but it doesn't beg the question because you're not assuming your conclusion is true, you're verifying it, if the correction, if the test is false, that proves you wrong. So that's not begging the question. That's why the testable predictions are how science determine which theory is right. Gotcha. Thanks so much for your other Super Chat, Steven Steen, who says, Marcus Dresden is Nathan Thompson's biggest fan. Well, congrats Marcus, happy for you. Always supportive. Mickey Rush, thanks for your Super Chat, who says, large bodies of water do not curve. Yes they do, what do you think a tide is? Gotcha. Hugh Jars, thanks for your Super Chat. They said, when someone says, quote, the globe model has minimum predictability, unquote, you know they're talking from utter ignorance or arrogance or their backside. I think that's for you, Lemon. Lemon? Shoot, something about elitist science and people not thinking anymore and giving their brains off to these scientists and stuff like that, I mean. Close. I don't know, this stuff doesn't make any sense. They said. The laser tech and citizen journalists do their own testing is disproving their model. So we have a problem here. Okay, I think that responded to their Super Chat. In the, it's like, given that they said the globe model has minimum predictability, I think that your response met that, was attempting to reply to that. So Flat Earth News, thanks for your Super Chat, who says in all caps, T-jump. Perfections is not science. The scientific method is scientific. You have no clue what you're talking about. You are a clown. By perfections, I'm assuming he's talking about the conversation with special relativity where it was. Oh, hold on, he said prediction, sorry about that. That was my mistake, sorry about that, Flat Earth News. So they said, I'll read it again one more time, especially because I enjoyed this one. Tom-jump, predictions are not science. The scientific method is scientific. You have no clue what you're talking about. You are a clown. That's interesting. And I wonder why scientists make predictions all the time. I wonder why predictions are one of the things in the scientific method. Then it's very strange that it's not a part of the scientific method when it's literally in every version of the scientific method. Gotcha, thanks so much. Appreciate your super chat from Spike Smith. They say, for a lemon, what's your highest education level, professional qualifications to support the reliability of your interpretations of evidence? I have a common sense and a willingness to submit to the truth. Something that professional elitists who have a career banking on this paradigm may not be able to have. I am an outsider who is free to operate and move in the truth in ways that compromise elitists may not be. So whatever my level is, whatever. That is enough of a qualification to find out whether or not this pagan globe is anything else other than Greek mystery school superstition. Gotcha, thanks so much. Appreciate that. And thanks so much for a brink of disaster who says three words behind the curve. I think it's a book, if I remember right. Who wrote this book? A documentary by Mark something. Gotcha, well, good to know. I'll check it out. Thanks so much, brink of disaster. And Phillip, thanks for your super chat who says, hey, lemon. Why do you keep assuming that scientists are badly motivated? It's irrelevant to what can be demonstrated scientifically. Yes, that assumption can be made with atheist spokespeople like Richard Dawkins and Michio Kaku going beyond the bounds of their method scientifically to try to prove or disprove stuff and cheerleading for an atheist paradigm, basically becoming cosmologists and priests rather than just scientists who manipulate the variables and see what actually happens. So based off of them basically trying to take over in a way and based a society on quote unquote science, I call it science so-called and man's limited reason, I can make that assumption pretty safely. But there are scientists from all walks of life, competent scientists, atheists and non-atheists or whatever. The main point is the theists, I would say Christians are not in control. The ones that are in control tend to be of a much different mindset. So even though they are present, they're not driving the agenda. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Appreciate it. And next up, thanks for your super chat from stupid whore energy. Nasty, nasty lady. So she says, how much are you quote unquote flat earthers being paid by the KGB to destabilize American society? Well, currently all of the money and prestige go to the debunkers. Flat earthers find their content put to the bottom of YouTube and Google feeds. And to the top, you'll see discrediting content or flat earth society, which is not the most trustworthy source when it comes especially to their fora where little to any discussion takes place. And sometimes you get this vibe that flat earthers are being discouraged from coming to the flat earth as opposed to having open discussion. So it appears that most of the effort is against the community, namely with what I've identified as three main components. People who have come to the flat earth have come to believe in a creator and even Jesus Christ. So the main thing, number one, appears to be a diverting flat earth from belief in a creator, especially a biblical one. Number two, barring that, sending flat earth down any sort of rabbit hole UFOs, which would be disproven automatically if we're covered by some sort of impenetrable bill, stuff like that. And number three, just causing a bunch of drama, trolls, doxing them, making sure the discussion goes nowhere. These appear to be the tactics that are levied against the flat earthers. Gotcha, thanks so much. Next up, appreciate your super chat from, SX zero, thanks so much. They asked, lemons keep pointing out the flaws on the globe model and the other guy just dismisses the argument. Oh snap, they're coming after you, Tom. How do you like them apples? Because none of those are actually problems. Like because of the problem of under determination, you can always explain everything in many different ways. That's not a problem. Just like you can explain it as a flat earth, you can also explain it as a globe. Any of them can all explain the data. What makes a theory special is, can it make future predictions that we don't know yet? And only the globe model can do that. Gotcha, thanks so much. And thanks so much from Michael McCaffrey. Appreciate your super chat who says, Tom Jump, do we ever modify theories based on new data without them making new testable predictions? Does that reconcile with your point about predictions? Well, we modify theories all the time, but we don't verify them until they make predictions. So we modified lots of theories and quantum mechanics. None of them have been verified, which is why none of them are accepted. So we definitely modify them, but they don't become accepted until they make predictions. So like we have lots of theories in physics about weekly interacting massive particles, WIMPs and other kinds of new particles that have been added into the classical model and supersymmetries and things of all kinds of different variations of particles that could exist, but we don't accept any of them because none of them make predictions. We would only accept them once they make predictions. Gotcha, thanks so much. Next up, appreciate your super chat from Goku Sun. Who asks, Lemon, if we're on a flat earth, explain why when I am on a mountain near me that is 3,000 feet, I think they maybe mean 30,000, I'm not sure. I am unable to see the nearest city that is 90 miles away. Well, by a perspective, your vision will sandwich. Basically the top part will converge into the bottom part and you're gonna get a sandwich zone beyond which you're not going to have resolvability. There is a YouTube user named Life is Short who does several videos that try to take perspective into account and how it could work over a flat plane. If you've ever seen the camera obscura, camera is an old word for room before it became like a digital camera for light to enter the room of the camera. But anyway, camera obscura, it's like a dark room. But basically you'd poke a hole in the wall, you'd see something in the distance that would come through the hole in the wall and the image would be inverted on the back wall showing that light comes through in kind of a linear fashion and there's image inversion. That's the same thing that's happening with your eye. So when you take that image further and further away, it's gonna reach the midline where the inversion happens and eventually the two light rays from the top and bottom of the object are gonna merge. They're gonna be so close together you're not gonna be able to tell up from down or have any inversion on the sensor of your eye. That's gonna lead to a horizon. So you're not gonna be able to see forever. Plus air has thickness, air is dirty, you can't see through the medium of the air forever before dirty air gets in the way. And you also probably have refraction over a flat plane. Lots of explanations right there. Gotcha, thanks so much, appreciate that. And next up, thanks for your super chat from Stupid Horror Energy strikes again. She says, why did I see parallel anti crepe huskular rays the last time I visited my father in Fidel Castro in Cuba in an airplane while listening to Nickelback? That's weird. Well, anti crepe huskular rays could be due to perspective as stuff gets further and further away from you. It's just gonna approach to the horizon and appear to narrow due to perspective. But you can tell if something's due to perspective because when you walk up on it, it opens up like a book. The train tracks appear to go up to your eye line but they're not physically at your eye line. It's just the parent optics. You walk up to the train tracks in the distance that look like they're at your eye level. It opens up like a book. And before you know it, you get there and it's below your feet with more train track beyond. It's just the way that we're interpreting optics. That's all. Gotcha, thanks so much. And thanks so much as well to Thy Messenger for your super chat. They said in all caps, T-Jump. Werner von Braun, the father of American rocket development slash NASA has Psalms 19-1 on his tombstone. They found the firmament. The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork Psalm, whichever one that was. It is interesting that the head of a rocketry at NASA would put that on his tombstone kind of like he's trying to show you something. It gets really conspiratorial with me when I see that there are so many project paperclip Nazis that were at the head of NASA and other institutions, especially when you have Satanic ritual abuse victim, Fiona Barnett, talking about how Nazis would do Satanic rituals in the streets. So at this point, my little conspirator brain is putting stuff together and saying these anti-God occult people are probably making a whole organization to basically make a liar out of the God that they hate. The heavens declare the glory of God is a really common one kind of like John 316. Lots and lots of people use it everywhere. It's pretty reasonable to assume he wasn't talking about the firmament part. He was just talking about the first part like everybody else. Gotcha. Stephen Smith, thanks for your super chat who says Austin Whitsit is a moron. McToon is proven this. Don't worry with him, Tom Jump. Yeah, I'm not worried about the Flat Earth. I mean, it's pretty easy to prove. Like if I actually believed in the Flat Earth, I would immediately fly to the South Pole and just discover it and make millions of dollars. But no one does that. Like the Flat Earth was real and the Flat Earth was really believed in it. I mean, you would expect a lot of them to be going to the South Pole to discover like the firmament or something because it would be pretty easy to like actually prove it was true. But no one does it. I don't think any Flat Earth has ever gone to the South Pole. I don't think that's a recorded thing that's ever happened. And I don't know why since, I mean, they claim it's impossible or there'd be stopped but no one, I don't think they've ever tried. Anyone can go there. It's pretty easy. I don't know why no Flat Earth has have gone to the South Pole. It's a really strange phenomenon. Gotcha. Probably the Antarctic Treaty. Well, no, anybody can just, anyone can buy a ticket. Any soul person can buy a ticket there. The treaty only applies to governments. Any individual can go there if they want to. Like I can just go buy a ticket right now. I just looked it up on Google. Is it that you're afraid of what you'll find there, Tom? Is that why you don't go? Why would I go to the South Pole? I don't believe the world's flat. Gotcha. I'm teasing you. I do, but I ain't going. Gotcha. First time for everything. And thanks so much. Stupid whore energy for her other super chat where she says, Lemon, are you Jill? Which is, if you don't know who Jill is, that's a provocative fellow named Jesus is Lord or Jill for short that comes on sometimes. Jesus is Lord. But I think that might be someone else. The Flat Earth is bringing people back to belief in the Creator. I was already pretty fundamentalist before as a glober. But when I heard about the Flat Earth, knowing about how governments lie with 9-11 and the incomplete narrative that they gave with buildings burning for hours and other similar cases and standing yet the World Trade Tower falls, seeing how institutions, even medical science institutions were corrupt with the cancer cures that they buried, the dangerous vaccines that they peddle that have been linked in some cases to autism. I heard about the Flat Earth and said, you know what, let me look into this. Cause I said, people can't believe in this stuff anymore. It's 2000 or whatever, but people still believe in it. That showed me that, you know what, I need to look into this. And when I looked into it, I never looked back. Gotcha. I have heard the old phrase that once you go flat, you never go back. So is that so? Well, some people have, you know, my crazy conspirator itself says possible agents, but you know, people are different and it's complicated. It's not always some sort of paranoid conspiracy. I just look for consistency. The globe doesn't jive with the laser tests. I don't see this universal gravity acting universally where it's forming globes and orbits. Sure stuff falls down, but it can be falling down toward a flat plane or falling through a medium that's electromagnetic and making it, you know, rise or fall, rise if it's helium, float and hover, maybe if it's like a cloud or fall if it's something else. Gotcha. Thank you very much. And thank you so much to Bartos Diagos. Appreciate your super chat. They say, could you ask Lemon, what do you think Lemon about Google Earth and did you take a look at it? Google Earth is very interesting. It looks like real photos at the street level, which is zoom out, use zoom out and then it gets to this uncanny level where it looks like a rendering. It doesn't really look like a real photo at a certain point. And Jarenism, another YouTuber did a video to show how the maps look a little deformed. He started in a place in America, I think it was Wisconsin or something and went due East, like 90 degrees due East from North, 90 degrees due East. And he tried to see if the map would let him go the reverse to 70 degrees due West back to the same location or if there was deflection. And lo and behold, he went 90 degrees East from Wisconsin to someplace in Europe and tried to go due West, 270 degrees back and it deflected South West instead of taking him due West back to the same location. That alone shows a suspicious amount of possible deformation and a map that may have been twisted and it's not taking you back the same way you came possibly. So it is interesting to look at how Google Maps may not quite jive with reality. Gotcha, thanks so much, appreciate it. And next up, appreciate your super chat from End Flat Earth, who says, Flat Earth is dead, let it rest. Thanks for that, appreciate it. These guys apparently, they're just having too much, they're too much pleasure is going on for them to stop. It's just Roberto Gonzalez, thanks for your super chat. They say, how come perspective-only sandwiches from top to bottom and never from left to right or right to left? Well, that can be answered pretty logically. You have two eyes located laterally in your head and your head is basically trying to take all this information and make one image. So it would be expected that there would be much more information left, right, much less up, down. So the limiting factor would become up, down and you'd get an even disappearance in that regard. But also, you have a top half of your visuals per zone from your eye lineup, which is coming down and a bottom half, which appears to be coming up. But this stuff can get pretty complicated but you can also try it out with a ruler. Any sort of straight edge, really. Hold it out in front of your nose. That'll be one unit of length. Then turn the same ruler or whatever side to side and you'll find that there's about a three to one ratio left to right versus in the forward direction. So you appear to have a different rate of things right there. And if you brings something up and down in front of your face, you tend to be able to see it longer left, right than you can up and down. So some of this stuff can be answered with a little bit of experimentation, even. Gotcha, appreciate that. And thanks so much for your super chat from Brian Broca. Appreciate it. Who asks, Lemonbird, why can I see other planets with my telescope, yet I can't see any of the buildings in New York from Texas? If you look at a pizza, this'll help you think of the angles that you're seeing. A pizza starts in the middle and radiates out from the center with those angles. And depending on the size of the pizza, let's give like a mile long pizza. You're gonna get pretty fat angles the further away you go. That's the same with your vision. In the upward direction, you have wider angles and can see further for much longer. But things tend to compress and get really smushed if you're only six feet off the ground. So since you're so close to the ground, the horizon is gonna be brought in because you're only six feet off the ground and you're gonna get a horizon about three to six miles out for a six foot observer. And the wide huge view that you have in the top is gonna try to descend to meet that broadened horizon to make everything nice and proportional. So basically, things are gonna set pretty early because you're too close to the flat plane. And things are going to basically, life for short goes over to get pretty technical. But the closer you get to the surface of the earth, the more of the horizon is brought in sooner and stuff in the top part of your vision descends dramatically. It's like as one pair of angles in the bottom part of your vision closes, a pair of angles in the top part of your vision opens proportionally to give you an accurate, faithful 2D rendering on the object that isn't distorted. And vice versa, if you get higher, towards like say the ceiling, the upper angles are gonna compress you, you get closer to a ceiling and the bottom angles from your eye line down are gonna open up proportionally. So it's a little complicated. Gotcha, appreciate that. And thanks so much for your super chat from Sassy Undeniably, first timer, who says theories are not science. The scientific method is not predictions or models. Prove curvature, spin, motion or space, not based on NASA CGI or pre-supposing it. So everything in science is theories like the germ theory of disease, the atomic theory of mass, the heliocentric theory. Everything in science is a theory. It's only theories. That's just how science works. Theories are built by facts. Like facts are like bricks and theories are like houses. And so you have the facts and you build them into a house. And so the facts make a theory, but theories are the big thing in science, not the facts. And so yeah, yeah, that's how science works is by theories. I had no idea what she's even saying at that point. Thanks so much for your super chat from SX Zero. Oh, appreciate it. They asked, can you tell us at what temperature does fuel freeze and what are the temperatures at the South Pole? And the temperatures at fuel can freeze for planes. I don't know if I can like Google it for you what the actual numbers are, but the reason planes can't go during the winter is because it gets too cold and the fuel freezes. It doesn't apply on the ground though. The ground is still fine. You can still have like cars and fuels, totally fine, but the atmosphere, it gets too cold for planes, but you would have no problem like actually just going there during the summer and renting the car. It's not that cold during the summer. Gotcha. Thanks so much for your super chat, stupid horror energy. She says, I wanna see Jill and Lemon in the same room. By the way, someone also asked in the live chat, are you Don Lemon? Well, on CNN tonight, you may see me there doing a, no kidding, that's not me. I wish I was Don Lemon, but I'm gonna do a special report on the Flat Earth tonight at nine, no kidding, but the thing is with the Flat Earth, it just matches sense. You're always gonna have Flat Earth as long as the globe wars against your mind. We're asked to see curvature when there's no curve or no hump to the horizon. We're asked to feel movement when we don't feel any movement. When we get in a car, we feel 20 miles an hour of movement. Yeah, we're moving millions of miles in space. Yeah, I feel none of that. That war is against sense and reason. So you're always gonna have people that are gonna look for a model that matches. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Appreciate it. Next up, let's see, I think this is the last one of the, no, we have like two more. Thanks so much. Goku Sun for your super chat who said, Lemon, if you were presented footage of the curve from a camera attached to a weather balloon of your liking, would you consider that evidence? No, lenses add curvature and barrel distortion. Even the rectilinear lenses appear to add a little bit of curvature, just not as much probably. So it's really hard to accept really any photo evidence. The gold standard appears to be a straight standard over the curvature of the earth to measure the curvature against like a microwave, a laser or some sort of ray shot at a target. Gotcha. If we flew you to space and you saw it, would that convince you? With the, I'd have to get out of the structure and see it in the air with my own eyes. And then, okay, I'd have to say, okay, I've seen curvature, but you look at high altitude camera footage and it's not consistent. You'll see curvature at 40,000 feet or something like that, but then you'll see a camera at 100,000 feet that shows what appears to be flat and level. It's not even consistent enough curvature to say that there's any curvature. NASA's full of crap that appears at UCGI and barrel distortion lenses. You'll see stuff like the SpaceX, you know, Roadster, you know, CGI in and out where it looks like you can see a studio in the background. It's just all bogus. Gotcha. Thanks so much for your super chat. Appreciate it. This one is from End Flat Earth. They say everything flat earthers say is logically flawed and factually inaccurate. That's why it takes the place of our currently accepted reality. Well, people are becoming synthetic and fake. Fake GMO food, fake beliefs, fake news, fake everything. You know, we need to build ourselves up with truth again. I look at the horizon and it's flat. So, you know, we might need to wake up a little bit with that. Gotcha. Thanks so much. And thanks so much, everybody, for hanging out with us. As we had mentioned, first of all, just a couple of things. First, we appreciate the speakers being with us. They are linked in the description as well as you can see good old Tom Jumps link right there on the screen. And also, folks, wanna say we are pumped. Thanks so much for hanging out with us. We are excited for these upcoming events. You'll see at the bottom right of your screen if you have not seen this already. Destiny and Vosh will be in person. That's going to be in Los Angeles. I will be there with them, like just sitting right next to them saying like, oh, hey, how's it going? And we are going to have a great time. It's gonna be a provocative one as yes, there are definitely things they disagree on if you saw their short little 20 minute mini-debate as of late. Also though, we are excited because Tom Jump, as I had mentioned, and his father, Steve McCrae, will finally meet face to face after a long time, most of Tom's life. So this is going to be epic. They will be facing off on, again, several different topics. This can range from the definition of atheism to perhaps Tom's old claims regarding what we ought to believe in the non-sequitur show situation. Very provocative, if you guys remember that. That was a little bit of a teaser of Tom and Steve. So that will be a very excited debate. That'll also be in person. So Tom, are you promised you're not gonna hit, I mean, he's your dad, so you're not gonna hit him, right? No promises. Gotcha. It's gonna be wild, folks. I'm excited for it. And though, I have to mention though, it's a thrill as we also have, if you haven't heard Matt Delahunty and David Wood, this is also going to be live and in person. So this'll be the day before Vosh and Destiny face off. And it'll also be the, which is also the same day that Tom and his dad, Steve face off. So we're also gonna have in person from Austin, Texas. We were on tour, and that's going to be on Monday, March 16th during the day. So that's going to be an epic one, folks. I wanna say thanks for being here. Hopefully you tune in for those as those are honestly, I am like pumped. I'm just like, wow, same week. And there's also one other one that like we might confirm for that week. That would be a huge guest who we've never had on, but who is known in the debate world and that's in politics. So that would be a lot of fun the first time. So I wanna say thanks to everybody. I am honestly just so encouraged that the channel is just so much fun for me. And it's always the more the merrier, like people just, you guys make it fun. So I appreciate all the new faces, appreciate all the peeps that have been with us for a long time, especially being patient with our audio issues. I think they've almost been as bad as Tom jumps audio issues. That's how bad they were, really bad. So thanks so much though. Again, last Tom and Lemon, we appreciate you guys being here. It was a great time. Yep, thanks for having us. Thank you so much for having us. It's so great to just have a peaceful discussion with somebody in this era when disagreeing with somebody is enough to get you the platform and just ostracize from society. It's great just to talk to people again and disagree peacefully. Yeah, absolutely. I totally agree with that. And so do want to remind everybody out there, whether you be flat globe Christian atheist, gay, straight, no matter what walk of life you come from, we hope you do feel welcome here. And thanks for hanging out with us and have a great rest of your night or day, depending on where you are. Take care.