 Good evening and welcome to Modern Day Debate. Tonight, we're gonna be debating flat versus globe Earth. And to start us off, we have five minutes on the floor for MC Tune. So thank you so much for being here and the floor is yours. All right, well, I'm gonna start by sharing my screen if I can do that. Sure can. There you go. So I am MC Tune. I have a channel MC Tune Live. I also have another channel where I do prerecorded videos called Conspiracy Tunes. So if you're interested, go find me there. So how should we seek to determine the shape of the Earth? Is this sharing? Yep, we can see that. No, there it is. Okay, well, you have to do a little bit of testing, don't you? So in a series of lectures by Richard Feynman, he described the key to science. First, we guess it. Yes, and then we come, well, don't laugh, that's really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what, if this is right, if this law that we guessed is right, we see what it would imply. And then we compare those computation results to nature, or we say compare to experimental or experience, compare it directly with observation to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. And that simple statement is the key to science. So that's the key to science. You have to compute the consequences. Whatever you think is potentially the truth of reality, then you compute the consequences. You apply physics and geometry and things like that. Then you compare to experiment observation or experience. And if they don't match, your hypothesis is falsified or wrong, as he said. Flat Earthers fail to do this in two ways. First, by getting the globe computations wrong. Often they ignore confounding variables. This is a straw man. And then by never computing consequences for Flat Earth. There's never, almost never anything. And if you can't do that, you're not doing science. The most common Flat Earth argument then is the globe predicts, and then something the globe does not predict, then this observation does not match the not globe prediction. Therefore Flat Earth. Obviously this is both a straw man and a false dichotomy. So another common Flat Earth argument is personal interpretation of the Bible, therefore Flat. But of course, many other people have different interpretations than Flat Earthers. And who's is right? Well, fortunately we can just go measure the shape of the Earth and see who's is right. We don't need to go to anybody's personal interpretations of the Bible. So there you go. I am done. Thank you for that. That's my introduction. All right, you got it. I'll reset the timer. And the floor is going to be yours. Just a reminder everybody to hit the like button and share this out. We're at the top of the stream. So let's try to get this and beat the algorithm. So Dustin, you got five minutes on the floor and it's all yours. Okay, so I just got back. I apparently I glitched out there. So I may cut my video. I'm on satellite. That might help a bit. I will at some point share screen. Okay, so I'm Dustin Nemos, journalist at Nemos News Network and archivist at theserapeum.com. A bit about me first, I guess. I stand witness as a former devout lifelong anti-God atheist that never lost a debate with any theist in my life. That as someone who tested biblical flat earth, I converted to what you might call a scientific fundamentalist Jesus freak instantly upon testing of various religious holy texts. Only the Holy, sorry, only the Hebrew Bible has 100% accurate synchronized prophecies and fine detail by the hundreds or thousands, hundreds or thousands of years apart every single time. I stand corrected and humbled eternally having thought myself wise before. And in my time, I've woken up tens of thousands of others to Christ, to Yahweh, to biblical earth using the scientific method to prove biblical earth precisely as God told us. I witness there is no more powerful tool in a modern Bible scholars toolkit or truthers toolkit than biblical flat earth and the seed war to wake everyone up to the truth of God our creator, Yahweh who wrote his name on every cell of our body. And if you think fake news was bad, wait until you see history and science. With that said, I guess we're going into the evidence is already, I thought that was kind of the next section, but sort of in the same vein, how do we, I didn't catch all of your presentation, but the same vein is how do we approach this rationally with deductive reasoning with the scientific method and with respect for intellectual honesty and how do we verify or falsify our hypotheses? So all evidence regarding the shape of the earth can be categorized into two main classes or categories, maybe the first class of evidence is something that can be obtained, experienced and verified by independent individuals and regular people. And the second class is what we get from third party sources like NASA and the government. And I'll basically throw all of the other governments, NASA's into the same category as NASA, same thing, same symbols. In fact, a serpent's tongue speaking through a forked disc, incidentally. If we consider only class one evidence that we can test ourselves without any doubt our senses and eyes tell us that the earth is flat and stationary. The horizon appears flat and remains flat regardless of our altitude. Roads, bridges and railways do not account for any curvature of the earth in their construction. Lighthouses are visible from dozens of miles away. Skydivers jumping out of a plane land on the ground without any movement or horizontal translation due to the alleged rotation of the earth. When traveling on an airplane, the airplane does not constantly adjust its altitude nor pitch for the alleged curvature of the earth. The airplane remains level throughout the flight. This is impossible if the earth is a sphere. When we consider evidence obtained from class two, which we cannot independently verify, for example, from NASA, we have plenty of reasons to be skeptical. The Apollo 11 moon landing mission is a perfect example. Briefly, a couple of the examples have done a different debate on this, on this channel in fact, check that out as well. A little plug for you guys. The photographs are obvious fakes since artificial light sources are used given multiple shadow lines, identical landscape backgrounds and several photos. And these are common tactics, not just the moon landing by the way, the lack of craters and dust on the eagle landing pads and rover destroyed evidence by the way, that's pretty common. All 1.5 tons of film footage and telemetry has been destroyed. They famously or infamously have declared they destroyed the moon landing technology. That's why they couldn't get back until allegedly recently. The Sea Rock labeled with a printed sea found in numerous photographs. And lastly, scientists now admit that the Van Alen radiation belts cannot be presently transverse with our current technology. It started in kindergarten when they put a globe in front of us and said, that's where you live. Then they showed us a picture of Columbus sailing over the edge and everyone laughed at how ridiculous that was. Hollywood science class and NASA helped continue the PsiOp. They programmed us this way so that when someone legitimately questions the shape of the earth, we dismiss them as crazy flat earthers. Education, so called, and cognitive dissonance take over from there. The Bible, gyroscopes, airplanes, whales, radar, sonar, rail guns, lighthouses, the Bedford levels experiment, lasers, cameras, long distance thermal imaging, math and observations and many other things prove the earth is not a ball. Question everything. All right, thank you so much. That's time. Thank you to MCTUNE and to SNEMOS for both of your introductory statements. We are going to move into five minute, back and forth, evidence-based presentations. Just wanna remind everybody, if you're listening right now in the live chat, once again to hit that like button, we really appreciate it. We'd love to see all the lively discussion in live chat. And also if you're listening on podcast form, which all of our debates are uploaded to our podcast form within 24 hours and you're thinking, man, I would love to interact with these speakers live for the Q and A we do at the end of the show. Make sure you check out our YouTube channel, Modern Day Debate. So we'll put it over to you, MCTUNE, five minutes on the floor and thank you again for being here. All right, I am sharing my screen again. All right, you're up and running. All right, well, this is a concerning Robbottom's claim number 15 and Eric Dubey's claim number two. Sorry, Robbottom and Dubey both claim that the horizon always rises to eye level, but, and this is a good point because it's a requirement for Flat Earth. Here is Robbottom's experiment number 15. But he did that from the top of a rather not very tall building and he used a, an instrument called a clinometer, which he described as just being a tube with a string across it. At the time there were available theatolites, but he chose not to use one. But what he never did was calculate the actual globe prediction. He did not compute the consequences. Well, here I am. I'm going to compute the consequences for Flat Earth right there. So there's a little diagram, not to scale of somebody may be in an airplane at 30 some thousand feet and over to the edge of the disk. Now, if this is incorrect, I would be happy to receive the correct way to do this, but lacking the correct way to do this. This is not a straw man. This is based on the claims that Flat Earthers have been making since the 1840s. So the distance from the observer to the edge of Flat Earth and the height difference there. That creates a triangle. You can get that angle there. That's going to be the angular dip of the horizon. I won't go through all the math here, but it does output a formula and calculating 445 degrees north latitude looking due south, the distance of 9000 some miles, the angular dip for Flat Earth is 0.417 degrees or less if you include refraction. Now, here is the other hand. I tested this myself. I'll get to mine myself, but this is the type of thing anybody can do. You can install the app, the Adelaide app on your iPhone or there's ones for Android as well. And you can measure the dip of the horizon. Here's one from 11,000 meters at 45 degrees north latitude. Well, imagine that I had calculated already right there. 0.417 is the Flat Earth predicted dip of the horizon and the real Earth actual measured dip of the horizon is 3.3 degrees. So now I can go, we could go through the formula for the globe. It predicts a 3.3 degree dip. So that confirms the globe and falsifies Flat Earth, just this one right here. That's not the only one. Here's another one that's a 3.2 degree dip from 48 degrees north latitude. Here is one I took myself at six degrees north latitude. That circle there is the moon, which is completely below me and I'm at 35,000 feet. So if that Earth is flat, then the moon can be no more higher than 35,000 feet, which would be ridiculous because nobody except if you're really, really close to it would ever see it at any significant angle in the sky. Falsifying Flat Earth. Again, below that square on the screen is the clouds, the horizon is below eye level. So significantly below, but it wasn't crisp enough to get a raw measurement. But again, falsifying Flat Earth. Here's one using a theatolite from a couple hundred feet elevation. This is in both faces of the theatolite. And then here it is turned down 269 degrees, 52 minutes, 10 seconds. So it did not rise to eye level and that particular amount of dip is the amount of dip predicted by the globe. And if you're curious, I'm happy to go through the math on that as well. There you go. All right. Well, thank you so much for your first, your introduction of your first line of evidence there. I gotta learn how to speak here. And we're gonna kick it over to Dustin. You got five minutes on the floor and thank you again. Okay, thank you. I've never seen so many flat pictures used to describe a curve. And the dip still seems flat, by the way. However, I will also share something as soon as this ad is played through it. Now it's going through and wanting me to buy the damn thing. We're still ready to share so I can pause the time for now while you get that ready. It's annoying. So bitch, you're starting to do like the five second ads every time. Okay, here we go. All right, that's annoying. Thanks. Okay, I'm just gonna play this in the background. But basically, without the music, this is a spy plane at 70,000 feet with no curve, just visual so everybody can kind of see what we're talking about here. We go made it bigger. Now, I apologize, it's not the highest resolution and I've got a bunch of other stuff to show you after this. I did not find the math that you just showed us convincing, but it was basically just math and it breaks down, as you say, upon testing. So it falsifies your hypothesis of a curve. In fact, your globe curve math essentially tells us we miss our six foot friend after three miles or so, four miles at max. And that's just not the case anyone can verify. And there's a lot of experiments that we can use to confirm this from a personal perspective without having to trust anyone. We'll get to some of that, I guess later, but examples being cold light from the moon zooming in over the curve. You can bring the boats back, Mount Kanagu, a hundred something miles over the so-called curve. You can still see the mountain from beach level. The Alps from the UK, 700 miles, you can see over the so-called curve. And anywhere that you fly and you play spot the mountain, you'll be able to see over the curve, mountains that should not be there, even at a great height, or mountains that should be much shorter or leaning away, you can see virtually the base anywhere. And yes, sometimes you can miss a little bit of the boat because of waves. Yes, the water level is not always perfectly flat because of waves and however, other than just distortion, it, another ad, that's annoying. Don't buy those flashlights. They suck. Anyone can do now where it's possible. Borax is better for you anyway. Borax is better. Anyway, we can see through actual real-world testing and experience that what the, what is happening above us concords with a flat biblical earth better than it does, the spinning heliocentric model. Here I'll repeat this. We can see time and location and a compass all coordinated with a flat earth model. And this is a Gleason's map. It's not 100% perfect. The Gleason's map stretches the ocean. It's really a globe on a 2D model. So that's why they allow it. For example, the actual ocean between Alaska and Russia can be windsurfed. You don't even need a motor to cross that distance, but it's huge on the so-called UN or Gleason's map. But it's close enough to make an example. I will show you kind of the difference between the two models, maybe with some ads here. Lightsabers are fucking you. It's really not, it's not fair. Anyway, so Gleason's centric model showed here, everything's spinning around us. And then here's their model. Everything is just shotgun blasting around this giant burning fart through the universe with rocks clinging to it, but not quite getting there. And water stays on the planet, air stays in the planet without a vacuum, and the stars somehow line up the same every year. And around Polaris, every single night, they spin around us like the hands of a clock perfectly. And you can see sort of like the little dipper form, almost like a swastika shape above us through the seasons, if you check the four different seasons. And yet they tell us that this is what we're experiencing, which the stars would be moving before our very eyes in a constant spirally circle of doom, if this were the case. But we see that they are stationary, except that they do slightly move around us very, very, very slowly, like a celestial clock, which is exactly what they are. How much time do I have left? You still have 45 seconds. Perfect, one more ad to go through here. All right, we'll pause the time. Let's you go through the ad. All right, go for it. This is an example of from the perspective, and I don't know exactly which country this is, but pretty close to the North Pole or the center of our world. You can see the sun from that perspective, very close to ground level there, going as you would expect on a flat earth model, and I cannot explain the math curve to you here, the lack of math curve to you, but you can see exactly what you would expect due to perspective. And there is something that has to be understood about perspective, and I'll share a different screen real fast about that. And it kind of addresses some of the stuff that you were, oh, I can't even find it that fast, apparently. Yeah, we are out of time, unfortunately. So we might have to get to that on our second round, but for now we're going to move into the bread and butter. So we'll take down the screen share for now, and we'll move into that next. So for now, let's move into the bread and butter. As I said, we're gonna go into our open discussion, and once again, we are going to do Q&A at the end of this discussion. So if you have a question for one of our speakers and get it into the live chat for a super chat, and it will make sure that that gets read to our speakers. So 10 minutes open discussion, and let's do this, let's hit it up, Jen. So to clarify, Ryan, this is 10 minutes open discussion on the topic that I introduced, correct? Yes. Right, okay. So I do notice that Dustin did not one time address the specific topic that I introduced in Steady, went off into a shotgun of different topics. Is there a reason why you're scared to address the topic I brought up, Dustin? I just, I'm not, I don't find your math compelling, as I said. Did you find any errors in my math? The globe earth math. Well, that the real world testing, if we were on a globe, your math would be perfect. But it fails upon testing. This was flat earth math. I tested the flat earth. So I agree. Which stands up. The math did not work for flat earth. The, the flat earth. No, the math does not work for globe. The flat earth prediction for the dip of the horizon from the actual measurement that I provided was 0.0417, but the actual real world measurement was 3.3 degrees. So why is it that the flat earth prediction failed? Well, we don't have a perfect model, just like you guys don't have a perfect model. Ours just works far better, and a concord with actual real world testings. Your prediction. No, our model is far better. 0.0417 is the flat earth model prediction. And the globe prediction is 3.3 degrees. And the measured, the measured quantity was 3.3 degrees. In fact, the globe matched to two degrees of precision and flat earth didn't match even remotely. So your model completely failed. Your model is less accurate than ours, although neither are perfect. Neither of us show a perfect geography yet. Well, then I can tell you, Dustin, that the globe prediction was 3.3 degrees dip and the real world observation was 3.3 degrees dip. So please explain to me how that didn't match the globe. I don't know the exact math on the predictions here between those particular, I mean, this particular topic, and I'm weak on the math. I won't lie, Jaren isn't stronger, others are stronger. However, I will break down the math for you if person B walks away from person A on your... This is a different topic. Are you scared to say the topic? Will you please stop interrupting? Why are you addressing your topic? You're not touching the topic. Curve at your math right here at the top. You are running away from the topic. This is that giant curvature math at the top. Just one second there, fellas. So whatever you ask is that we don't do any screen shares right now, just for, we got seven minutes of open discussion, then we can go back into presenting new lines of evidence and new arguments but right now, we're gonna try to keep it on screen so if we could go back here. Six foot person, I'm sorry. It's a different topic, Dustin. Six foot person walking away at three miles. Dustin, I measure as a dip of the... Stop interrupting, Mike. You're not gonna win by interrupting. This is the wrong topic, Dustin. Are you scared of the topic? I reclaim my time. I'm addressing your flat earth versus globe earth math arguments right now. You definitely address the math that I presented. Go ahead. I don't need to address your failed arguments. I mean, you have a bunch of math models but as we seek the math breaks down at three miles every time. Different topic, Dustin. Same math. Same math. It's your math that breaks down at three miles. Any six foot person can test this. I didn't present any globe math. I only presented flat earth math that you're scared to touch. But you say yours is more accurate than ours and I'm saying neither of us have an accurate model. That's why the math is off. The globe predicted 3.3 degrees dip and the dip was 3.5 degrees. I humbly admit that we do not have an accurate model yet but it's closer than yours. That's a failure. No, it's not closer than yours. You refuse to admit that your math breaks down at three miles. Yours didn't touch it at all. Yours was significantly far away. Three miles, anyone can test this. Anyone can test this. Three miles, the math breaks down. Why can't you stay on topic, Dustin? Are you saying you can't address the topic? I did, it's curve math versus fun. You are not addressing the topic. Is he gonna interrupt me the whole time? Is this like? Our horizonship is the problem. Let's run it out. Let's run it out. Let's just admit we are just going into circle here and kind of doing a yes, no, yes, no back and forth. Ryan, as the moderator, you are to keep it on topic. I will just reinforce that modern day debate. We are hosts and if you find the audience or if you're watching elsewhere that the interlocutor, as on screen is not providing you with the substance you're looking for, we as hosts at modern day debate don't enforce that they answer it the way you would like to. We'd like to let the audience decide for themselves. In a way, Dustin. Whether that's compelling or not. So you still got six minutes here, gents. Yeah, the math breaks down at three miles and I don't have any answer for you off the top of my head because I haven't done your studies there. The dip of the horizon is the test here. No, that's your that's your bottom up instruction, a totally different topic. We're talking about maybe during your time you want to bring up a different time. Well, I don't have an answer for you off the top of my head. Okay, so that's fine. Just admit then that the global prediction of 3.3 degrees and the observation of 3.3 degrees matches for the dip of the horizon and the flat earth prediction of 0.047 degrees and the observed dip of 3.3 degrees does not match. I have no comment on this because I haven't studied this particular study at all. And I have you agree to this debate. Yeah, and I have plenty of evidence that you're running away from the topic then. I'm not. You're just trying to like to go for me. You're changing the topic. You can't her math to curve math. But but well, it's the thing. I you want to say that your model is better than mine. I'm saying neither are perfect. And you're trying to like avoid this topic. And you're trying to avoid that. I said that neither work. But ours is better. And you're saying yours doesn't work. So you're wrong. Mine 100% worked and yours was terribly yours. Doesn't work at all 100%. Six foot person disappears three miles gone. 3.3 degrees. Big mountains show up dip 3.3 degrees of angular dip in an airplane at 11,000 meters. And your dip was flat. Flat earth predicted 0.047. All of your pictures were flat, Mike. All right, I think I think we have been spiraling here and topic change. I think I think what we should get pictures. I think what we should do since it does seem like we're going back and forth here. We're not really yet. We're just getting a little sound bites back and forth between the two of you. I think we should move back into our five minute back and forths like we were. That was the plan anyways. So we're going to wrap up our open discussion for now. We'll try to do this again once we get a little bit more on the table here. So we're going to hand it over to you, Dustin. You have five minutes and the floor is yours. OK, what I was saying about perspective earlier, just so you guys can see that real briefly, things do sort of bend. And that's why stars have weird, wonky, celestial star trails and such. It's not a perfect circle sometimes from the visual eye. There's something called an azimuthal visual equidistant, basically a bubble that limits your visual range to the local stars around you. That's why people in the center can't necessarily see the stars at the edge or northern can't see the southern, as they say. Anyway, I will switch my sharing back over here briefly. You can see this, for example, right here with the Big Dipper stars. You can see that although they go in a counterclockwise trail it's showing you clockwise. That's a little confusing. Basically, you see right there, it kind of looks like a swastika when they've got those arrows. But it circles us like the hands of a clock. And in terms of, let's see, local sun video. I want to show you guys this one too briefly. After the ads. Man, they make them really catchy too, don't they? This is a sun video with the clouds above the sun, behind the sun, illuminated by a local, close, smaller sun. And there's a lot of these videos, and you're going to have to look at a whole lot of NASA math in order to make that flatness go away. I also want to briefly talk about things like vacuum, space is fake, they have no actual photos of globe Earth. I mean, they're all fake CGI art. None of them match each other. So if we're going to look at the who's accurate model and none of the maps that you present are accurate, and none of the maps that we present are accurate, although ours are very close, especially the older that you get, ironically, there are some that are actually quite close and perhaps inaccurate, although we haven't been able to test that 100% because there are places we're not allowed to go in this world now, strangely like Antarctica. Anyway, there's all sorts of visual evidence that you can test. Lunar eclipses, for example, destroy the concept that we are on a, at least it destroys the globe model concept. If you actually do the math for gravity, as I understand it, that breaks down, and then you end up with things like dark matter and anti-gravity and all these other sorts of New Age nonsense that came with these false scientists, more like scientists or seances or pagan priests of the old world order, because all these guys were also into the occult. I mean, Newton, for example, wrote thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of pages on alchemy and pulled gravity right out of the emerald tablets of Thoth or Hermes. I mean, that was stolen. He didn't even really come up with it. There's a lot of little things. I wanted to focus on visual stuff so that you guys could kind of see this stuff for yourself. I don't usually do that. I usually just sort of go through the infographic with you guys. But I think I've shared this one enough. And I'm going to share my main sort of debate image. And I'm not an artist. I'm sorry. Going through curve math, like I said, if you go with two six-foot people and you walk three miles away, you have lost 90% or more of that person. Although that doesn't actually happen. Like I said, the boats come back. If you zoom in, here's Mount Kanagu, 175 miles over the so-called curve. You can see the silhouette of the sun behind the mountain. Here is the Alps from the UK. You can see the multiple points from 600 to 700-plus miles away, 729 miles there at the Meje point. That's way over the freaking curve, just by the way, for your math. Even if I'm not great at it, math not my strong point. There's absolutely no evidence of any sort of movement whatsoever. Coriolis effect breaks down. Waterfalls aren't curving, et cetera. Been up in a lot of hot air balloons in my life. They didn't float away on their own. That took the wind. The world wasn't spinning beneath us, though. We didn't end up in Japan or anything after we were up there for a few hours. The Earth being a ball is debunked in all sorts of ways. Lasers, how they use weapons. Lighthouses, as I mentioned earlier. Chicago across late Michigan. The Bible, the triple wobble that they tell us that we have, the procession axial wobble, the nutation wobble, and the Chandler wobble. So apparently, we're wobbling in three different ways all at once, which is not even possible. Doesn't even make sense. The stars absolutely prove it for us. All the luminaries are absolute evidence for a flat Earth. I mean, they're all close and local, like street lamps. That's time. All right, we'll end the screen share there. So thank you so much for your presentation there, Dustin. We'll hand it over to MC2. And you've got five minutes on the floor to respond to what you just heard. All right, well, that was to be a single topic. And all he did was shotgun without evidence. So I will share this screen here. Are you getting that? Yeah, I got you. Dustin, all right. So there is from Antarctica, sun going the other direction, which is impossible on pizza planet there. Anyway, he said, I'll go through some of the claims without evidence. He talked about the azimuthal grid of vision. There is no supporting evidence for that. The amount of light bending that would have to happen is unexplained for. The close sun inside the clouds, clouds are no more than 11 miles high. And if the sun was no more than 11 miles high, then over the tropic of Capricorn in December, then somebody in Minnesota, the sun could be no more than a half a degree, quarter of a degree in elevation. Yet I've managed it myself. It's 20 some degrees high. So it's definitely doesn't match that. He said that the globe maps are not accurate. I just want to see some examples of that again. Claims without evidence. He has no evidence for it. He just spouts out this shotgun of stuff, even though it was supposed to be one topic. He did agree to this. I don't know, anyway, he didn't seem to read the actual format here. He said the math for gravity. I would love to see you go through the math for gravity, Dustin. Then you said that boats come back when you zoom in on them. I have never seen that ever happen. I ask Flatter-thrus in debates all the time if they can show that video, that mysterious one video that they all seem to think exists where boats are partially obstructed. That's our claim. Boats are partially obstructed by the curve. And then brought back with zoom. It never happens. Nobody can ever bring that video up. Kanagu, if you did the math for Kanagu, you will find that it actually completely is predicted by the globe. But do go, do go ahead and show the math that you did for Kanagu, the globe-based math for Kanagu. I'd love to see it. Again, I want to remind everybody that in my introduction, I said Flatter-thrus' most common argument is to say the globe predicts and then something the globe does not predict, followed by a saying this observation does not match the not globe prediction. Therefore flat, the false dichotomy and the straw man put together. So anyway, show me the math for Kanagu. I'd love to see that. The Alps from the mountain in Wales, those are clouds. The angular size between the individual claimed mountaintops are dramatically wrong from the actual angular size necessary for that distance. Nobody did any, no Flatter-thrus' ever done any critical analysis on that. They are easily indoctrinated because they take it without critical examination. Hot air balloons should not be going flying away because of Coriolis. That's not Coriolis. That's a lack of the understanding of the conservation of momentum. But do go ahead and show the application of Coriolis to hot air balloons. I can go through the math. I have done the math on Coriolis for hot air balloons and airplanes myself. So I'm ready to discuss that topic. And then this wobble thing. It's like Flatter-thrus' never did even the introductory math where you sum vectors. You can sum rotational movements as well. So all of, there's no limit to the number of potential wobbles that could simultaneously happen. In fact, if you've ever spun a top, you can identify that there are more than one wobble happening simultaneously. So anyway, it did not surprise me that he did not stick to the agreed format. And it does not surprise me that he just did a shotgun with no evidence. But anyway, go pick some of them and let's go into detail on the math, especially. I'd love to see the math that you think. You think you have, that is wrong. I'd love to see the application of math and without it being a straw man. There you go. Thank you for that, Ryan. No problem. Well, thank you, MC Tune. And thank you, Dustin, for your second presentations of evidence there. So we're gonna go into another open discussion here up to 10 minutes. And I will just ask our speakers just to try to create a space for the other to respond if you have questions for one another. So go ahead there, Dustin, to respond to some of what you just heard. He wanted me to show it. So I'm gonna show it to him. Yeah, actually, sure. Let's do it. We won't show this up. All right, it's a little fuzzy. Here's the Mount Kanagumath. I don't understand it, but you can verify it or debunk it for me and I'll be happy to take it off of my website if it's wrong. Yeah, take it off your way. Jarenism is much stronger when it comes to math than I am. I'm the biblical earth guy, not the flat earth math guy. However, the Ireland to Alps thing, obviously, you didn't address that. That's not clouds. That's actually way over the curve. And there's a lot of other examples like that. It's not clouds. And also, you ignore the fact that my visual evidences were evidence. They were not just me shotgunning things. That was me covering things very quickly in no particular order. But in fact, the evidence is included in what I was showing you for the most part. And you can test the math here against globe earth math. This is a Rob Schieba testing the globe image here, this under the curvature math part. So there's a lot to this in terms of- That math is incorrect as well. Okay, now it's all incorrect. You've debunked it in no time. And I just shared it. Yeah, it is incorrect. That's the globe earth argument. That's the same nonsense for math thing, say it's wrong. Flat earthers think to see, I can address the math. I can do the math myself. I presented math for flat earth. And you're like, you don't know. I get that you don't know. You can't do math. I know you can't do math. I can do math. You presented math claiming to be globe math, but it's incorrect. Now that's the official globe earth math. No, it's there's where, where is the official globe earth math? Where is that documented? The official. So using government's own numbers, NASA's own numbers, and sometimes they don't even agree because it doesn't make sense. Oh, it's official. I wanna see the official. Who is the official globe earth math keeper? I guess NASA would be probably. I'm sure that you and has their own opinion on things. Well, you don't know who the official is. You said it was official, but you don't know the official. They all have their own official things. They all have the same symbols though. So you don't have any official. So let me make it clear that that math, you took it away, that that math that is from Rob Schieba who also could not do math, did not take into account the observer height and neither did it take into account refraction things that the globe does have. And oh, it's called the Pythagorean proof of curvature. It's the what? Pythagorean proof of curvature. Say that one more time. Pythagorean proof of curvature. Don't make me say it three times. Okay. All right. You have a problem with that one? Yeah. Oh, no, no, no, you nailed it. All right. So? No, you did not. It does not include the observer height. Okay, so it does not include the effects of refraction, both things that the globe claims to be straw man, the globe. Right now. Now you're saying that the math is right, but it's just wrong because of refraction. I said the math is wrong. Well, it's not. It is wrong. It doesn't work. It doesn't work. This is the curvature math. It doesn't work. It did not account for the actual globe you straw man, the globe. Now you don't understand the math. So you're just Waves. You're just quoting something, Dustin. You were just quoting something with uncritical acceptance from somebody else. That's indoctrination. You've been indoctrinated. I have plenty of evidence that I understand, and I don't always understand the math. However, I accept and, you know, I will take this down if you can debunk it. Like I said, Jarinism, Robsky, but these guys are stronger than me. I did debunk it. By the way, boats don't come back over. I mean, they do come back over the curve, but what you're talking about is called waves. There is not a partial obscuring. That's just waves. You can see it in this image right here. Bottoms don't actually disappear. So, I mean, you're just like, I'm showing the video of a boat being partially obstructed and then zoomed in and no longer being obstructed. Go ahead, you said it exists. Almost all of these videos are at theserapeia.com. Slash, thank you. Play it right now. The video of the boat that's partially obstructed and then it brings it back. You think this is fake? That's a still. I need to see the video. It's still real. It's an image. It's an evidence. Do you know what an evidence is? I want to see it unzoomed and then zoomed and the bottom of the boat brought back. Here's the boat. Here's the boat. You need two of them. Yeah, you need two pictures at least. Here's the boat. You need the unzoomed version. Well, no, I just need to show you the wave of partially obscuring part of the boat and not the other part of the boat and you're debunked. No, that's not our claim. Our claim is that... You said partial obscuring, right? Was that not your words? Yes, partially obstructed. So, for example, just the very top, everything above the hull is the only part that's visible. So, for example... Well, that was a partial, partially obstructed. With partially not partially obstructed. No amount of zoom is ever unobstructed anything ever. Well, there's always a little bit of wave. And no flat earther has ever shown zoom... So, you asked for the math, I showed it to you. You asked for the zooming of the boat. I showed you the image. I showed you that the math is wrong. I showed you the official Pythagorean proof of curvature, which fails at three miles. You don't like that math. You don't accept that math. Refraction gets rid of that. The official... What do you want, man? I want you, if you're going to talk about math, to do it right and to actually know the topic. I don't need to. I want you to debunk these things which stand because the arguments stand. I already did. You did not use the globe. You can't... I don't need that to work. Yes, I did. I used their Pythagorean proof of curvature math. No, you didn't. No, you didn't. You did not include the observer height. And you did not include the affix of refraction. This actually... So, you straw manned the globe. Like I said, in my introduction that you would straw man the globe. Most of these videos that do these experiments do include observer height, actually. And refraction. And refraction is not what you seem to make it out to be. You cannot bend light. You cannot bend over the curve. That does not work. Light does not bend now? You can't bend over a curve and bring the boat back. Did you just declare that Snell's Law does not exist? Oh, dear. I just declared you can't bend around the curve. My glasses are still working. For example... Dustin, my glasses still work. Snell's Law still works. For example, that was in a super mirage that we saw with Chicago over the Lake Michigan shoreline. That's not light bending and showing us a perfectly accurate silhouette on the city. Well, show me the physics that it's not possible. I don't know the physics of it up in my head, but it's not show me that it is. I don't think light can bend visual imagery like that. That's a standard reversal of burden of proof. You're the one that made it. Oh, the burden of proof is on you guys up until 500 years ago. No one believes in the reverse of the burden of proof. Globalism on sense. 500 years ago, too. You guys still have not proven gravity or space or globe Earth. You can't prove any of that. Nice topic change there when you got a burden of proof. It's on you, not me. It's not topic change. You brought it up. You made the claim that it's not possible for that to happen. So show the physics, show the physics of it. Your claim, not mine. You have the burden. I'll look for it in the background here. But in terms of like you proving it, you have not yet met the burden of proof. And I will also when you're cornered, obviously. No, you haven't met the you brought up the burden of proof. And I didn't change a topic. You brought up proof. You made the claim about the physics being impossible. You have the burden of proof on that. I will also use this ice rink experiment. I know you hate three minutes. I hear, which is frozen water, perfectly level, by the way, a ruler moving across. I know you hate this one, right? I actually I actually added the counters for your nonsense. I love it. Right. So ruler moves with a perfectly level laser here, by the way. I don't know if you guys can see this. What's the margin of error that perfectly level laser? I mean, it's close enough for the naked eye and this sort of mathematics. It's not perfect, but it's a good home experiment that works over a flat level surface. And it is and something anyone can repeat and test. So you can you can try to win this with just math that doesn't hold up to actual world observation. But I'm going to keep showing people evidence if they can test the home. All right, so we're going to see who wins. What does the globe predict as the curvature across that ice rink that you're testing? Right, you have to do a falsification test. That's how you do science. So what is the global testing for her? There is no. Yeah, exactly. What is the global prediction for the amount of curve across that ice rink? How much? What's the right here? Prediction, Pythagorean theorem right here. Pythagorean theorem. And how much to show me the and here you go. Let's see. It's way less than one mile. It's way less than one mile. Yeah, it's so help me with the math expert. Show me how much can you expect? You're the one you're the one making a block or so. Well, show me curve. I don't see any curve there. You're trying to tell me that there's curve and because I can't see your curve, I'm crazy. I don't see your curve. It's not there to see, friend. Oh, my gosh. Prove that we have curve on the level. All right, well, you can laugh at it. But we're all right. It is the length of an NHL ice rink. The official length, sixty point nine six meters long. So across the entire length of it, which is not that test, but let's let's grant that for a second. The entire length of that, the amount of curve, which is the bulge in the middle in this one, for example, is zero point zero seven two nine millimeters. That's the predicted globe curve. So how did you test whether or not there is a zero point zero seven zero point zero seven millimeter curve? Should we do it with better lasers, maybe? But is it a good example of? No, it's a terrible example of ice. Yes, because the ruler is only. It's so dumb. It's only there's only markings every millimeter. You can't even measure more finely than half a millimeter. And you're talking about a curve that you're trying to test. Imagining that you're testing of zero point zero seven millimeters. Oh, my goodness. You suck at science. Hey, math is not my strong point. I know that. Why would you bring up something that you still can't debunk any of the things that I brought up, which were math related? And I understand the arguments. Every one of them. No, you didn't. You said clouds, that's not clouds. Last. First of all, you can go there and you can like do that video any time. Those points don't move. They're not clouds. What points? So there's only one photo of it ever. The points that you say are clouds or not clouds is obvious the way that they're shaped and sticking up from the bottom. Bottom, the horizon, which is flat, by the way. But you can tell anyone can test this. Anyone can test the cold light of the moon. It's translucent and put out the cold light. It's anyone can test lunar eclipses. Anyone can test the math that I just said. Look, I don't fully understand it, but debunk it and I'll take it down. You have it. I already did. You just said you just said to the Kanagu math. You just said no, all right. You didn't even have the time to do the math. All right, Dustin, we're going to move on. We have our liar. Like I said, we had to agreed upon format. I know it's a little different, but we're going to try to stick to it to see how well it works. And, you know, if you like it, let us know in the live chat too. We're going to move into a five minute presentation of evidence. We got five minutes on the floor for you, Mike, next. So take it away. All right. Now, Dustin, notice I'm sharing my screen. Notice I'm I'm presenting on one topic and I have evidence supporting my claim. So there you go. There you go. You're up now. You got it. All right. Let me switch it here. OK, so the eclipse is coming up next Monday. The the solar eclipse going across the United States. I will be in Texas to watch it. So the time, location, duration, path of totality, amount of totality and amount of coverage for eclipses are precisely predicting using the globe and position of the Earth, Moon and Sun and the solar system. None of this is based on flat Earth. None of it. Here's some historical predictions done by Edmund Haley in 1715, using the globe. Here's some more that came after he did that, all using the globe. And now we have these are Fred Espinac, who has published this. He has all these things. He's published that people can buy their own books. I have it myself. The the first one there on the left, I own that book. And these eclipses are are published, are predicted using VSOP 87 and ELP 2000, things that are not from the US government, by the way. They're both they both are in French. They're used to predict all of the features of the eclipse. Specifically, here's VSOP 87. Here's the data. It is an ephemeris that that tracks the positions of the planets Mercury through Neptune in the solar system, as well as the Earth, Moon, Berry Center in the solar system. So this documents the the positions through time of all of these different bodies in the solar system in three dimensions. And then this is so that's the raw data. This is an example of a Fortran program that is comes with the data package that analyzes the data and outputs different things based on what you're interested in determining for the time, you know, the date and things. It's but VSOP 87 covers thousands of years. Then the ELP 2000 ephemeris details the positions of the Moon in relation to the Earth, including a whole bunch of things like title forces, things like that. If you look at Table One there, it includes the masses of the Earth, Moon and Sun and the relationship between the masses in Sigma One, Sigma Two. And the distance to the Moon is used in the bottom right, 384,000 kilometers. So this particular ephemeris outputs the distance between the Earth and the Moon as one of the things, which is an absolute necessity to figure out the amount of totality of the eclipse, again, something that no flight or there can even begin to do to tell how far away the Moon is from the surface of Flat Earth and how far away the Sun is from the surface of Flat Earth. No flat Earth has ever done this. No flat Earth can even begin to predict an eclipse. Anyway, those those two ephemerides are used to then output this this table here on the left is the full screenshot and on the right is a little more zoomed in version of it. But this is for the eclipse coming up in April 8th. That is the different locations of the point of totality. And other details so that people can put them on a map, which is exactly what people have done. So here is here is the eclipse that that data structure, the data set output to this shows exactly where the the eclipse is going to be. And with over a billion dollars being spent by people going to see the eclipse, they they better be right. These they better be right on it. But you know what's really cool is that this completely matches your type one evidence. The data there is is produced by individuals, private individuals and can be predicted, can be used by private individuals. If you think if Flat Earth is if you think it's wrong, it's on you to show where it's wrong and even more so on you to show how Flat Earth predicts solar eclipses. Good luck with that. I have a feeling you won't. All right. Now do try to keep it on topic there, Dustin. I was a good guy in math. Now let's go to some real stuff. Five minutes on the floor, Dustin. OK, topic. Here we go. First of all, eclipses and mirages. The Selenilian total lunar eclipse and, for example, the Chicago Skyline Mirage are two well-known phenomena that Flat Earthers, Middle Earthers in my face, claim as definitive proof that the Flat Earth model is the true and correct representation of our world. The Selenilian total lunar eclipse occurs when both the Sun and Moon are simultaneously observed above the horizon and impossibility if the Earth needs to be between the two to cause the eclipse. When the weather and conditions are favorable, the Chicago Skyline has often been observed from the Michigan shoreline 60 miles away. Again, an impossibility within a globe Earth model. Also, the ancients had probably better astronomical accuracy and understanding that we did. Examples like the Antikythera mechanism and the Hebrews were very accurate. The ancient Mayans were very accurate. They predicted the stars and the alignments and the eclipses and all of that way better than we can today. And they didn't have to deal with all that like nonsense, change the calendar and deceive people like daylight saving all that stuff, which we have to deal with the day after they rigged the calendars against the Christian Hebrew faith when Rome at its days and merged Christianity with paganism and giving us their Gregorian calendar. Anyway, that's just addressing some of the stuff you're talking about. But, you know, the sun is obviously close to us, much smaller than we've been told. We don't know exactly how far away it is, but it's not 93,000 miles away or sorry, 93 million miles away that they tell us. We can tell that simply by looking at the corpuscular rays that we see, which are in front of you here. You can see how the beams sort of come out at a simple point and go out at different angles. This also happens with light, by the way. You can also see the little bit of a wobbly pattern in the stars, which show that they realign in the same position at the same day of each year, every year, every day, perfectly, which would not be possible that we were shot down blasting through space. Again, the moon itself is transparent. Sorry, I don't need a lot of time to address all the stuff that you're talking about. You're on the topic. Pretty quickly. Well, I address those and now I'm my turn, my turn. So, you know, my turn to talk to yourself. Anyway, you were saying that your model is more accurate. It's not. You can't show me a, in fact, any different globes that agree with one another much less are accurate. But they give us a different version. So even if I wanted to believe you, I wouldn't know which version to go with. But NASA is completely beyond trust and their credibility is brokered than the Ten Commandments. You've got all sorts of weird examples like photos from Earth being represented as photos from other planets. And you have their symbols, which is pretty much all the space agencies of all the world. Strangely enough, have a serpent's forked tongue speaking through a flat disc as their symbol. That should tell those who are hip to the deep state and how it really works a lot. They keep dropping the ball, so to speak. Here's an example of them literally dropping the ball while in space and panicking over it, but then regaining composure. There's a lot of that. My space is fake article on the seropadium.com. You can see all the little green screen fails and near drowning incidents and bubbles and harnesses, etc. And where should we go from here? I don't really need a lot of time to show most of these because they're visual and people can understand them. So if I come to something that I need five minutes to break down for you, I will. How's that? In terms of just continuing with what we've got. OK, there's the math again for Mount Kanagu. By the way, the mountain should mostly be gone. And there it is, almost the entirety of it over such a curved distance that it should be, excuse me, impossible. Vacuum is another one that they ignore because they can't demonstrate anywhere in the whole of creation where a vacuum will cling to a ball with I'm sorry, where gases will cling to a ball without some sort of a container or seal around them and doesn't work. We can't be shotgun blasting through space without a bubble to protect us and all of our air from off into space. That doesn't happen. And anyone or even any kitchen wife who's ever tried to, you know, use an instant pot can tell you that we use it all the time. My wife gets it and she's one of those Asians like not that good at math, in fact. But they told the radio guy first transmission across the Atlantic Ocean wouldn't work. And I can't even pronounce his first name, but Marconi did it anyway. And he disproved the 10 seconds of birth. We have a Radistines debunked easily. He assumed a far away and big object. But if you do the same math for a shorter, closer, it also works. So it's not really proof for either side. That's it's it's unconfirmed. OK. All right, well, let's let's start with the what whatever you called it, 10 seconds, whatever, 10 minutes. Sorry, go ahead. Yeah, well, the math that you claimed was possible. Let's see the Eratosthenes math that works for Flat Earth. Let's see it. Wait, you may do on your turn. No, this is our 10 minute open discussion on the topic that you avoided. So Eratosthenes math Eratosthenes that works that works for Flat Earth. Please show the Flat Earth math that works for Eratosthenes. OK, can I share screen then? Sure thing. All right, I was worried. Here we go. Rob's keep it to this video. And he did a longer video, by the way, that really breaks this down. But basically, the conclusion is, as I said, if you take the presumptions of a far away and large celestial object away and use a closer, smaller light, a regional or local source, kind of like a lamppost, then you get the same sort of results with the shadows. All right, I didn't see the math there. Could you show the math? Tell you what, I'll give you I'll give you the math for a measurement on the. I got it. If you want the longer form, I got you. The December 21st solstice, where myself at 45 degrees north latitude, I measured the elevation of the Sun to be twenty two and a half degrees. And my friend in Jerusalem area, thirty one point three five degrees north latitude, he measured the angle of elevation of the Sun to be 36 degrees. So can can we just plug that into the math that you did? Well, let's see. Let's see how it compares to this. I will screen and let Rob Schieba's math speak for me. A shadow experiment is used as a proof that the Earth is a globe. But moonlight creates the exact same shadows as the Sun, which completely disproves this experiment. But before going into more detail about this, I will briefly explain Eratosthenes experiment for those who may not know about it or forgot what it was. Eratosthenes notice this isn't ski, but it's someone else. Shadows are of different lengths and angles, depending on where you are on Earth. And then wondered how this was possible and ultimately deduced that this is only possible if the Sun's light comes parallel to the Earth. And the Earth is a curved surface that's shown in the diagram. However, the Sun's light can only be assumed to be parallel because the Sun is claimed to be one hundred and nine times larger than the Earth. But this then creates a paradox because the moon also casts the exact same shadows as the Sun, and yet the moon is only supposed to be a quarter the size of the Earth. The problem is, if the moon's light is assumed to be parallel, then it would only illuminate a small portion of the Earth. But we know that this is false. Half of the Earth is supposed to be able to see the moon at any given time when the moon is illuminated. Holy cow, this is just scary. Half of the Earth should also... When does it get to the math for Eratosthenes? By assuming parallel light from the moon, half of the Earth would not be illuminated by the moon. This has nothing to do with it. Not be parallel. You can't even keep to the topic that you... It's about it. Why do you keep interrupting? Because it's not about the Eratosthenes. It's literally about it. It's literally not about it. This has nothing to do with Eratosthenes. All right, there we go. That looks like it. It's about your presumptions. The bunking of presumptions will get to the Eratosthenes. I want to see the math. I want to see the math. Okay, quit interrupting. You're so rude. Do you not like the information? I thought you were into, like, actual... Down to the top. Let's see the math. We're falsifying the hypotheses. We're doing that right now together. But by assuming parallel light from the moon, half of the Earth would not be illuminated by the moon. So the moon's light cannot be parallel. But it has to be if the sun's light is supposed to be parallel. The audio is very low. The only way that the sun... The audio is very low. If you could turn the video up. Oh, it's up all the way. Okay, we'll just do what we can with it. I'll turn us up on my end. And only the flat Earth model has both the sun and the moon illuminating the Earth in the same way. Both are radio lights that are smaller and closer to the Earth than in the globe model. So by also considering the light of the moon, only one model allows both the sun and the moon to cast the same shadows. The flat Earth model, while the globe model cannot account for this. Furthermore, it can be easily proven that the sun's light... Here's the deal math there. ...by comparing how the sun looks to lights that are known to have... Light about math. Spotlights, although not perfectly parallel light, are sufficiently parallel, and we should all know what it looks like when a spotlight shines at us. But if not, here is footage to remind you. When a spotlight shines at you, you do not see a circle. Rather, your entire view is blinded by light. However, when the sun is shining on the Earth, we see the circle of the sun. But if the light were parallel, it should appear the same as a spotlight. But it does not, so the light cannot be parallel. Rather, the sun looks like any ordinary light. All right, well, no math was presented there. Thank you. Just debunked a Tostanese experiment. You did not address any math. You said the math proves it, and the math works both ways. You didn't show any math at all. Math actually only works our way. You didn't show any math, though. You didn't show any, so how did you do math? But I debunked your math. No, you didn't even touch my math. I debunked it. No, you didn't touch the math. Then explain to me. All you did was make claims that it would work, but you didn't show the math. I don't need to explain it. You said the math would work for both. We're going to show the math working for both. So, all right, we just let you do the screen share, so we'll let him respond. Let's go back to the topic that you're definitely scared of. Eratosthenes was what you want to talk about. Let's do it. It's Eratosthenes. Eratosthenes, Eratosthenes, whatever. Come on. Come on, Chucklehead. Eratosthenes, I'm helping you. Eratosthenes. The topic of this particular, you didn't. That was your claim that the math works both ways, but you did not show the math. So, thank you to the audience who can definitely see you did not provide any of the math that you said would work for Flatter-Earth. Then show us the math working with the moon and the sun being different with your way. The topic is, I'm happy to do that, but your claim, it's your claim, your burden of proof, not mine. You avoided it. I didn't avoid it. So, the topic though that you are definitely scared to address is the prediction to the second of the eclipse that's happening in just a couple of days using the globe and the fact that no Flatter-Earth geometry can even determine the amount. We don't have the billion-dollar budget of NASA to hire an astronomer if we didn't do better. Neither did Edmund Haley who did the first prediction in 1715. He did it as a hobby. They've been predicting eclipses for thousands of years, friend. No, they have not been declared. Yes, they have. And celestial alignments of the planets. Awesome. Then show me an eclipse prediction before 1715 showing the path of totality and the time. What about the Mayan calendar? The Mayan calendar does not include the path of totality. It's not even an eclipse thing. You're thinking sorrow cycles, but sorrow cycles only gives you the approximate day. You get accurate. Not give the path of totality or the time. You had no, they like saving time, inaccuracies in the ancient world. It has nothing to do with that. You have inaccuracies in modern way. I'm asking you, why is it that the globe can accurately predict to the second the time that the eclipse will be seen for anywhere and there is nothing for Flatter-Earth at all, not even remotely? Because they're using our tax dollars to do it. That's the short answer. Nothing to do with that. Because Edmund Haley, Edmund Haley did it himself without any tax dollars at all. He did it as a hobbyist. If you say so. How did he do that? I don't know his story. However, they were doing it practically in the ancient world. Oh, excellent. Bring it up. Also, Eratoslav. No, no, no. They did it more accurately in the ancient world. Bring it up right now. That's right. Okay. They didn't need daylight savings time and they had perfect action of the planets. Are you lying about that, Dustin? I don't have it with me at the moment. No, you don't have it at all, Dustin. Anyone can find this. I know. You're a rude ass. Anyone can confirm that you just lied, Dustin. I did not. You just... The ancients had more accurate... All right. We're going to let us see it. Excellent. Let's see it then. Bring it up, Liar. They lied savings to fix it. Bring it up a couple years. Bring it up a little. It didn't need leap years. Come on, Liar. Bring it up. You made the claim. Are you a pedophile? Okay. Really? Are you a pedophile? Yeah. We're on mute. Sorry, Dustin. We can't be... We're done? Yeah. We can't be good doing... Call me a liar? Oh, no. We're done. Yeah. That's a little... Ryan, kick him off. Too much, unfortunately for... Are you? Kick him off, Ryan. What? You don't like lies about you? Kick him off. Kick him off, Ryan. You don't like lies about you, Mike? Ryan. You handle the same... I am not... I am not joking with Ryan. Maybe if you don't like it, you stay out of the kitchen, Mike. It does sound like the best thing to do. He is done. I did not prove that I'm a liar. Ryan. Just one second. So I take it, given what's going on, what we just heard, there's no way we're going to be able to pull you back into... Don't finish this discussion. Dustin is gone. He's scared. He wants out. Dustin is gone. Ryan, Mike. Well, we'll have to do... We'll have to leave. Don't start with Ryan. Unfortunately, you have broken the rules that we did put forward. So best thing to do... Oh, my video just shot off. Which role did I break? Yeah. We did ask before we did start the debate and not... Yeah, there's... Which rule? We all know what rule it was. Specifically, be... Dustin. No, I didn't break any rules. Be specific, because you broke the same rule I did. Let's see it. You broke it first. Hold on. If there's a rule at all, which I don't remember any rule about not calling you a pedophile when you call me a liar. All right. All right. Yeah, we're going to have to kick you out if, like you said. Kick me out, but which rule? Just which rule? It's just not working for me. I'm so sorry. Tell him he's gone. I can't be in there. I won't report it. I'm so sorry, everybody. If you did put in a super chat and you were hoping to ask a question to Dustin, I am sorry. You know, I do what I can. And sometimes I feel like, oh, gee, are my hands going to be tied on this one? But despite all appearances, I do have some personal integrity. And I don't think that that's obviously conductive to having a discussion. I don't think some of the paths in which we were taking were going to be terribly conductive anyway. So the very best I can try to do for you guys since I don't see this going on the up and up from here would be to try to answer the questions that we can for you there, Mike, and then we will try to honor what we got here for our super chatters. I am sorry, everybody, but yeah, there's a certain line and if we're just going to sit here and discuss whether we can call other people obscenities on the internet, then that's not what we signed up for here. So let's see if we can get some questions here for you, MC Toon, and then we'll shut her down. And if you think I made the wrong call, you are welcome to dispute that in the live chat. But let's see. Ryan, thank you. Thank you for doing the right thing. And it's obvious that he hit the wall and he couldn't handle it. Well, we won't go down the meadow on this one. We'll try to interact with our audience. Thank you. That's all. Yeah, sure. And yeah, let's try to carry on. But yeah, sometimes I do feel like, you know, it's tough to make a call. Maybe some people would have said, you know, you should have made a call a little sooner, but I'm not known for being a reactionary. I sit here, I chew, and then I make a decision. So let's see here. We have Ed's puzzle said, God made a dope globe Earth with curvy water. I thought that would just be funny. It's just because there's not much there. Bass guitar was a question for Dustin. Anybody who had a question for Dustin, if you want to email modern day debate at gmail.com, if you're upset that we weren't able to ask your question to the speaker, and we will get this all taken care of. So let's see. LJ asks, thanks for being here, LJ. I'm in Miami and can confirm seawater lays flat. Why are there non-zero non-CGI videos showing ocean at a certain distance curving sharing the link if you disagree? Well, I can certainly share the link. I can share my screen. I don't know if you want me to quickly here, but I have it ready. Here's a non-CGI picture of water curving. This is from an airplane over the ocean south of Australia. Are you seeing that? I don't know if you're seeing it. Anyway, the curve there is easy to see. It's at 46,000 feet, and if you think it's lens distortion, here it is bottom of the screen, and here it is top of the screen. It's not lens distortion. If you think it's the cockpit, the cockpit has been verified to also not introduce curvature. I can show you that if you want, but feel free to comment on my video and I'll link it to you if you want to see the testing of the cockpit, whether or not it's curved. All right. Well, thank you there, and we'll carry on. Thank you, LJ, as well, for always being here for these discussions. We do appreciate you in the live chat. Thank you, Kango44, for your questions. Sorry, that's for Dustin, and also bass guitar. We're going to move through those questions. And as I said before, you can email moderndaydebatedgemail.com if you're not happy about it, but if not, we do appreciate the support, everybody, and we'll carry on. What size does sea slash ocean water start to curve? It's always curved. Yeah, from everywhere, but of course waves and stuff are significantly larger than the curve. So at short distances, they're difficult to see, whatever long distances you can, as the phone I just showed does. All righty. LJ, this seems like he's doing a callback to last debate with Oz and Witsit, so I encourage you guys to check that one out if you haven't. And LJ asks, Oz, drop the link for one non-CGI space footage video. So if you want to interact with me. Yeah, Arizona State University has, it was unclear if we wanted video or photos, but photos are pretty nice. Arizona State University just Google ASU to the moon. They have about 15,000 photographs scanned from photographic slides, and you can download the high res TIF file that's uncompressed and look for yourself to see that they're not CGI. Feel free to do a detailed forensic analysis on it. All right. Next one coming in from Marcus Wynn. Oh, sorry. That's a question for Dustin. Sorry about that. But yes. Well, I will say sorry. And my Canadian fashion to you, Marcus, that we don't have Dustin here. Unfortunately, things went a little south. Maybe a little pun from me. Well, J asks, how can ships go 17,500 miles per hour safely with people inside? You mean the ISS? Easily because there's so little air up there that it's not a problem. There's nothing that there's no turbulence when there is essentially no air. So you get up past where there's air and you just accelerate really well until you're moving sideways at 17,000 miles an hour. That's how you do it. All right. Let's see what else we got here. LJ asks, how would you change your mind to go to the other side? So what would it take for you to be convinced of the other? Well, the Earth is flat. Yeah, that's a really good question. And I'm happy to answer that. There are many falsification tests possible for the globe. Things that I have examined myself, the time of sunset based on globe geometry, if that was dramatically wrong, that'd be a thing. And if the flat Earth prediction for the sunset time existed, then I could test that as well. Same thing for the angle of the sunset or the elevation of the sun at any time of the day. I would be happy to look at measurements of flatness across the surface of water using good techniques where they included confounding variables, control for confounding variables. A photograph of the flatness from a high elevation, maybe looking at the ice wall from, I don't know, even Australia. No ice walls ever been shown. The photograph I put up earlier was not quite looking south. It was mostly looking west. So there wasn't any ice wall over to the left there or ahead of it. So a few of the things like that would be good. I would be happy to entertain, but so far none have. Okay. Let's carry on here. Erin Reese, sorry about your question there. That was for Dustin. We have one, another one from Kango upset that I wasn't able to make Dustin. He says stick to the points. I'm sorry, Kango 44 once again. It's a white flag of defeat that he can't address the topic. Well, I will just say to Kango once again. Sorry. I see that you did ask quite a few questions and I'm sorry that we weren't able to address them from the speaker that you're hoping to ask them to. So yeah, my apologies again, everybody for like I said, I didn't see this being able to rise up out of the ashes from that point going forward. So thank you MC tune for staying here to answer these last questions. You know what says, do you have a possible explanation as to why flat earthers think talking about the supposed results of math is an actual mathematical evidence? That's always gets me because I know that flat earthers generally don't do math. Dustin said multiple times that he can't do math. And then he said he boldly said that the math for the Eratosthenes experiment. I had to correct him on this pronunciation worked for both flat and glow, but he'd never show it. He's like, I'm going to show it. And then he did not show it. And he thought and some sort of like weird. I don't know how he thought he showed math. He's so unaware of math that when he doesn't show math, he thinks it's math. It's weird. This this world they live in. I don't know. Yeah, that's weird. All right. Well, I will give you one minute there. If you want to wrap up your thoughts, I'll just read one last super chat here from Matters Now saying after show on Matters Now, I am not MC Tune. I am not as good looking. He's better. Oh, is he is better looking than me? What are you talking about? Okay. Let's see here. I can't go 44. Says no worries, Ryan. You did a great job. Well, thank you, Kango. And I do appreciate being here and, you know, trying to keep everything engaged. You know, after the discussion, you know, we appreciate everybody who put into super chats. So we're going to call it off there. Like I said, sometimes things don't go quite to plan, but we do what we can do. And hopefully enjoy what we did get out of our discussion. Definitely check out the other debates here on modern day debate and hit that like and subscribe while you're at it. So I'll close it out with me screaming at you guys. That's how I like to do it. Cheers. All right. Thank you, Ryan. Thank you.