 Good evening and welcome to Modern Day Debate. Tonight we're going to be debating, was the moon landing a hoax? And to start us out, we have Dustin. So Dustin, the floor is all yours and thank you for being here. Okay, thank you so much for having me on. I am going to mention I sort of crammed for this particular moon landing topic at the last minute. I'm generally more into cosmology, so we will touch on some of that tonight. Hopefully not go too much off topic. Anyway, with my intro, I am Dustin Emos, also called The Archivist. I've seen many things, things of good and evil. And have I got answers possibly to some of the deepest and most profound questions laid before mankind? You may choose to place the burden of proof on our shoulders tonight and say, why do you doubt the official science of world governments? But then I would reply, why do you believe it? This belief is fairly recent and completely hinges on unproven theories such as space. It's hard to believe the moon landing was real. What NASA is claiming is essentially that they have gone a thousand times further than they can go today with 50-year-old technology on the first attempt, with one one-millionth the computing power of what is in your modern cell phone. There's now clear evidence of NASA using numerous methods to mislead the public about astronauts being on the ISS and other space missions, air bubbles, wires, harnesses, green screens, virtual reality, strings, gravity, grabbing objects that are not even near drowning incidents, etc. Space is a satanic secret society deception. The elite are ruled by a cult that worships the demigod Nephilim or Anunnaki lineage of the fallen angels of Genesis 6. They have created entire branches of false science around the Copernican Revolution, the now thoroughly debunked theory that the world moves around the sun, which is why we're really here. In order to convince us that the world is a globular rock, cannonball, corkscrewing amidst infinite void, with infinite other globular rocks and dust shotgunning behind, a rock that is billions of years old, merry-go-rounding around a burning giant fart that itself shoots through space at incredible speeds, without flinging us off through velocity or momentum, while maintaining absolute clockwork precision. And we can find lucky moments of absolute stillness without so much as a breeze. In truth, the demonstrably biblical earth is young stationary geocentric flat hollow and domed, and they are spending vast quantities of your tax dollars to make damn sure, pun intended, that you don't find out. I stand witness as a former devout lifelong anti-God, anti-theist atheist, who never lost a single debate with any theist in my life. That as someone who tested biblical earth I converted to scientific fundamentalist Jesus freaked instantly upon testing of various religious holy texts. 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 been a know-it-all before, and in my time I have woken up tens of thousands of others to Christ and to Yahweh and to biblical earth using the actual scientific method to prove biblical earth precisely as God told us. I witness there is no more powerful tool in a modern Bible scholar's toolkit than biblical flat earth and the seed war to wake people up to the truth of God, Yahweh our creator, and who also wrote his name on every cell of our body. How am I doing on time? So you still have two minutes and 30 seconds, but I would ask if we could just try to hone in on the topic of tonight's debate. I know that this all ties together and we'll get into that for the open discussion, but yeah, I'll put your timer back on and jump out here. I thought this was just the intro, my bad. The moon's translucent, you can't land on it, everything's flat. There's actually zero evidence for space, it's not CGI. It all has like sex written on the globe, marble, stuff like that. We can basically go down any rabbit hole you guys want to go to, that's my intro. Okay, all right, well, we'll end the screen share there. Pop back over to our main debate stage. Thank you so much, Dustin, for your introductory statement there. We're going to hand it over to Flatsoid. You have up to six minutes here to present your intro case. Yeah, so I just want to keep my screen up quickly. There we go. Is it showing? Yes, so you are on a phone. I'll let our audience know that Flatsoid had to switch to his phone. It's a little strange. I'm going to try to fix it up for you guys. I don't know if I can share it. It doesn't work, okay. Why the moon landings never happened? Well, I didn't really have time to set up the presentation. I just took one of my old ones I have done before. Obviously not on the other four, but it's just basic arguments that I hope we do get into that the globes are going to be able to defend for the moon landings. Anyway, the first argument is arguments against the moon landings. According to the second law of thermodynamics, if the earth is considered an open system, the air on earth would seek to fall the available space presented to it. This is the second law of thermodynamics. And because of it, the moon landings would be violating this natural law, because as I said, the earth would release all the air into the available system. And we would be dead and we wouldn't be able to build the space rockets to go there. So again, if the earth is considered a closed system, because you need the gas to stay on earth, it will not let the people leave the closed system, aka they cannot leave earth to go through this closed barrier to get to the moon. So that would be an argument why the moon landings can't be real. Now, the other argument is are the astronauts lying? The first one, what did the astronauts see? Let's take Donald petite, for instance, this is based on the stars. Donald petite claims to have seen stars, nebula, and so forth from space. And then we look at different ones where do their stories actually collaborate with each other. Arguments against them again, Mike Massimino also claims with Donald petite to have seen the stars, nebula, and so forth camera space. But let's move to the most famous Neil Armstrong. Neil Armstrong claims it's pitch black that you see no stars. How is it that Neil Armstrong sees no stars but yet Mike Massimino and Donald petite are able to see stars and nebulas and everything. And they both claim to go to the same place. Or how about Buzz Aldrin? He claims space is just a deep black with a velvet sheen to it. Also not really collaborating with the others. Remember Buzz and Neil went together and yet they had different stories on what they saw. Or how about Chris Hadfield? Also claims space to be deep velvet with a velvet sheen to it. And Michael Collins, my favorite. He says he can't remember to see any stars. Later on he writes a book where he says he did see stars. How do you not remember seeing stars or not? And then later says that you definitely saw stars. So the argument would be why would they all contradict one another's observations if they really did go where they claim to go? Stars or no stars, which ones is it? The next one would be the Van Allen radiation belts. They would have to have traveled through it if we had to beg the question of Narnia. And the Hasselblad cameras would have huge implications based on this. Films exposed, the polydetectives did actual quote unquote experiments trying to figure out what would happen in a vacuum and radiation with the film. And obviously it gave a lot of problems. It gave different uses that exposed to radiation as they didn't mess up everything. Films just showing that quickly see how changes the coloration and the color balances and the use and everything. And then obviously why aren't the astronauts able to just swear on the Bible to say they went there? Obviously because they never. Then Gary Fong, if you haven't know, he's a well-accepted professional Hasselblad photographer. He also says it's impossible for the Hasselblad to have ever worked in that environment. The next argument is how do you change a film in a dust environment? Now remember, this dust is so fine, apparently on the moon, that it gets in every crevice even on the very tight sealed astronaut suit. Why is it able not to get into the Hasselblad camera, which is really not as sealed as the suit? Okay. And then obviously the form in the vacuum and that's about it. So how do we know we went to the moon? Simple. It violates natural law. They always contradict each other and themselves. And none of the equipment would even magically work if you did go to Narnia. And that's my presentation. All right. Well, thank you so much for your introductory statement, Flatsoid, and from our hoax side. So over to the not a hoax side. And I'm going to ask Grayson to go first. So Grayson, the floor is all yours. We had worked it out for Ozean to go first, actually. Oh, see, I thought where Ozean got here. And Ozean's actually coming in with a little bit of... He has a cold and we really appreciate you taking the time to come on out. So Ozean, you volunteered to go first. I figured I'd put it on you, Grayson, to get some surface thoughts out there to maybe give Ozean a little break. But all right, Ozean, floor is yours, buddy. Thank you. I just want to point out there was a comment there that was very racist and disrespectful towards Jews. And I don't think we should have these type of discussions when we're talking about... If we went to the moon or not. So let's avoid that going forward. Thank you very much. Today, we're diving into the persistent moon landing conspiracy theories which claim the U.S. government fabricated the Apollo moon landings in the 60s and 70s. Special thanks to Modern Day Debate, my debate partner based theory, and our opponents, Flatsoyne and Dustin. I'm also hosting an after show on my channel with actually Ryan, called Matters Now. So hopefully you can join us there after this is over. So it is impossible to cover all the details of this colossal endeavor in a mere six minutes. So I will go over the highlights and we can discuss them during the open discussion. Hopefully we don't turn this into a debate if gravity exists or not, or the shape of the earth if it's hollow or domed or whatnot. And we can talk about if it's physically possible to go to the moon or not. And if we have historical documentations to support that. And by golly, we are still sending lanners to the moon in 2023. So the level of incredulity required to deny it reaches absurd proportions. So we have gone back to the moon. To affirm a historical event, we must demonstrate as physically possible and validate it with primary and secondary sources. Skeptics view the moon landing as a grand hoax, critiquing old film footage and questioning the physics of the flags and shadows and things like that. And apparently the testimony of witnesses. However, they often overlooked the determination of President Kennedy who committed to landing a man on the moon, a goal realized by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on July 20, 1969. Humanity's journey to the moon is a marvel. NASA's Saturn V rocket, central to the Apollo missions, was a feat of engineering at 110 meters tall, equipped with a powerful F1 engine. Its launch in the subsequent stages were intricately planned. This involved orbiting Earth to properly align for the lunar journey, then meticulously maneuvering the command surface module and lunar excursion module for the moon landing. Michael Collins who was in the CSM played a vital role orbiting close to the moon. And they couldn't see stars from the moon because of sunlight, because either on the sun side of the moon. So the lunar module essential for the moon's surface landing extensive testing ensuring its functionality. The descent to the moon was a carefully executed process with the astronauts navigating to a safe landing spot on an uncharted surface, a true pioneering endeavor. The development of spacesuits by NASA was crucial for moon exploration. These suits were designed specifically for the moon's challenging environment, debunking the notion of them being mere fabrications. Actually, they created two types of suits because the people that went to the moon's surface didn't need needed better suits than the one in the command service module. So instead of just making one, they made two. This design was sophisticated, capable of maintaining a one quarter atmospheric pressure difference equivalent to going below water three meters in the lunar vacuum and safeguarding the astronauts from the dangers of space. Radiation protection during the Apollo missions was meticulously planned. This spacecraft trajectory and shielding were designed to minimize exposure to radiation, the Van Ellen belts. The astronauts average radiation exposure was remarkably low, an average of 0.8 rad about like an x-ray, reflecting the careful planning and execution of the mission. To protect the astronauts from radiation, the Apollo missions meticulously planned their trajectory to avoid as much of the Van Ellen belts as possible in the charged particle radiation and use shielding on the spacecraft to navigate the belts. Aluminum locked the charged proton ionized radiation while the insulation like this plastic, curigated plastic, I believe, countered the charged electron ionized radiation. These belts consist of charged particles of protons and electrons captured by the Earth's magnetic field and propelled by solar winds, not waves. If the hole had been made of lead, like some people said it should have been, the interaction between the charged particles and lead would have produced x-rays, which would have been dangerous to the astronauts. So that's why they didn't use lead. Comprehensive scientific evidence and expert analysis robustly dispute the moon landing hoax theory. The Apollo missions represented an extraordinary achievement in human history, a culmination of extensive research experimentation and innovation. The overwhelming evidence including photos, videos, phone calls, scientific data support this to 2.5 seconds to send messages to the moon supports the speed of light. This evidence is further reinforced by firsthand accounts from astronauts, naval veterans, my former shipmates, well not mine because I was in the navy when they were, and records from scientists and engineers involved in the missions. This extensive documentation could withstand scrutiny in a court of law. The notion of a vast enduring conspiracy to conceal such a monumental event is highly implausible, accepting the moon landing as historical truth corroborated by significant evidence and global lunar exploration efforts is a logical conclusion. And I'll conclude it with that. Thank you. A1, thank you for that Ozy and sorry for laughing, I can hear the parrot in the background. And yeah, is a girl or a boy? Mary, a girl. Well, Mary's got a lot to say. So over to you, Grayson, for your up to six minute intro there. Thanks for being here. All right, perfect. Yeah, my name is Grayson from the channel BASED Theory. I do debates on all kinds of pseudoscience topics all the time. Check it out. Tonight, we're going to be talking about the moon landing, whether or not it was faked. So my partner just kind of ran through the historical evidence. I'm going to be talking about since most people that think that the moon landing was fake, they have a problem with NASA. They won't listen to anything that NASA says. So I'm going to be focusing on third party independent sources that validate the moon landing that are not NASA. So first of all, let's just put our critical thinking caps on. Let's think rationally about this, right? What was the context for the moon landing? Well, we were in the middle of a cold war with the USSR, both of which were vying for various realms of influence throughout the world. So it was in the geopolitical interest of the USSR. If America faked the moon landing, they would have had the technology and the budgets to verify that and provide evidence that that happened. And it would have been in their geopolitical interest to do so. They would be shouting it from the rooftops. They would be trying to expose America for having done what would have been the most elaborate hoax of all time. I mean, this would be truly a remarkable endeavor if the US had been able to pull off such fakery. And the USSR, through signal tracing, radio telescopes, there are so many different ways that they could have provided evidence that this was faked if it had been faked. The fact that we have not a single nation on Earth has ever came out and said that the moon landing was faked, not just the USSR, but China, India, Japan, North Korea, Iran, any enemies of America that would benefit geopolitically by exposing the US as having faked such a thing, none of them are saying anything. So you basically have to bite the bullet and say, if the moon landing was fake, so was the Cold War, and so are the illusions of different governments, which I have a feeling that both of our opponents here tonight will probably bite that bullet and say that, really, all the countries are just fake. They're all in cahoots together. They're all trying to fake space and fake the shape of the Earth and blah, blah, blah, blah. But for normal people with critical thinking skills, I don't think that that's a bullet that many people would be willing to bite, that the Cold War was just fake and that really the US and the Soviet Union were working together the whole time and there was no animosity. So with that, I'd just like to share my screen very briefly and just go through this PowerPoint here. So what's the moon landing fake? First of all, here is a published paper from the USSR in 1978 where they use the radio telescope to actually bounce signals off of the scientific equipment that was left behind by the astronauts of the Apollo program. This was published within the Soviet Union just for internal consumption within the Soviet Union. So again, they have to be in cahoots. Just one second there, Grace, and I have to zoom out your screen share just because we had to zoom in so much for the phone share. Okay. There we go. All right, carry on. Okay, so that was a Soviet paper. Here we go. Here's an amateur third party. This is a guy from Kentucky, right? This is on the week of the moon landing in July 1969. This guy, Larry Basinger from Louisville, Kentucky, they wrote about it in the Louisville Courier, the local newspaper, about how he was able to point his little device that he had made to measure this, and he was able to point it directly at the moon and intercept the exact same transmissions that was playing on everybody's TV. And he was disappointed that they were the same, and he didn't get to pick up any juicy bits that they had edited out. It was the exact same according to Basinger, who's an amateur who did this. There's also this guy, Sven Graham, who did pretty much the same thing for the Apollo 17, the last mission to the moon that was manned. And you can see here his data there on the left, on the sheets that he was filling out in 1972. And you can see that plotting here, the Apollo 17 Doppler analysis, showing that it matches the Doppler, what it should be for the moon's surface. But this wasn't just done back in the day. Here we go, this is just from a couple months ago, doing the same kind of analysis, a Doppler analysis on the most recent Chandrion 3 mission to the moon. This guy, Scott Tilley, who's an amateur astronomer, did this himself with his own equipment. He has a blog here, like Riddles in the Sky, where he breaks down exactly how he did this analysis, all the equipment that he used, so you can do it too. And right here, he has his data doing a Doppler analysis, exactly matches what it should be if that signal was coming from the moon. So this is pretty much proof beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. But if you wanted a final nail in the coffin, here is a retro reflector that the Apollo astronauts left on the moon, and the scientists today can shoot a powerful laser at it, precisely targeted at it within a centimeter accuracy. And you can see that it's called Lunar Laser Ranging. It's still done to this day in observatories all over the world, not just in the US, but in China, in Russia, in France. There's observatories all over the place. They routinely do these Lunar Laser Ranging measurements, and they literally hit these devices. And you know that they have to be hitting these devices because the signal that they get back from them is not just from hitting the moon's surface, that's called an EME, and the type of signal that you get from hitting specifically these retro reflectors is completely different and cannot be replicated without this specific piece of technology physically being on the moon left behind by the astronauts. And with that, I will end my presentation. Thank you so much for your opening statements, everybody. Oh, now I got to fix this screen. Look at that, see? Everything just wants to have fun. All right, so that was our introductory statements, everybody. We're going to go into an open discussion. Just want to remind everybody hanging out in the live chat to hit the like button. Share this out in those spaces that you like having these discussions. We are a neutral platform. We host debates on science, politics, and religion. We hope everybody feels welcome in this space. Let me turn up my preamp a little bit because that's not going to be important in two seconds. So we're going to go into open discussion and thank you so much, everybody, for being here. Let's go to radiation. What do you think the radiation is at the experience in the Van Allen belts? Okay, so the radiation, as I understand it, and I'm pulling up my article here, got to get back to it. If you just look at the thing, like if you actually look at the moon lander, and I'll pull up an image for people to see. What's the type of radiation do you know? It's charge particle radiation, right? It's not a wave. I'll get to a quote from the BBC or History.com or whatever in a second. I just want people to look at this and just very carefully look at what we should assume is radiation shielding. And this stuff is basically paper thin and buckling everywhere. It's flimsy and fake. It basically looks like paper mache and tinfoil. There's also, incidentally, there's no exhaust, burn hole or crater. There's no windows. There's no stars. And we'll get to the stars in a second. Okay. Now, in terms of radiation, the Van Allen radiation belts, according to BBC, quote, some people don't believe in the space shuttle and the missions to the moon because they think the journey itself was impossible because of something called the Van Allen radiation belts. The Van Allen radiation belts are huge belts of radiation that surround the Earth. Yada yada. Get to the end here. Radiation sickness occurs when you have been exposed to around 200 to 1,000 rads of radiation within a few hours. They claim that NASA made sure that the spacecraft was well insulated. So actually the average dose of radiation over the 12-day mission was similar to a chest X, right? Yes. 0.18 rads. So again, just throw back. The average exposure between all the missions was 0.8 rads. Look at that leaky piece of, that leaky bucket full of holes and go back and assume that, you know... But you understand that the radiation shield was not effective. It must have, they would have died. The radiation wasn't waves, it was charged particles, right? So waves are reproduced. The shielding was busted is the point. The shielding was aluminum and it was, they had insulation in the aircraft. So the insulation, oh, what did I say? So there's electron-chartic particles and proton-chartic particles. And the aluminum blocks, if it had been made of lead, it would actually produce X-rays. So they're not rays. So they don't pass through the material. The particles have to be, will interact with that material. So if the shielding, you're saying that if the shielding is busted, it would still work. The shielding is not busted. I don't know what you're talking about. There's no busted shielding in that. I can zoom back in. Anyway, in answer to the light angle question, your argument in basically history.com's argument is essentially that the light of the sun is blocking the dimmer lights behind it. And this right here just blocks that. When you go out there during noon time, can you see the stars? Often, yes, to various degrees. Okay, depending on where you're at. So most people would say, no, you can't see the stars. And in fact, well, it depends on where you are in the time of year. In fact, you can see the moon that time of day sometimes. In point of fact, you can see various angles in a country setting with light at various settings right here. You can always, to some degree, see, even with light in your face or light all over the soil, much more than you might see in the moon lander setting, which is what we're sort of comparing to here. The moon lander's light was at a very, very deep even. It was brighter. You understand the sunlight was brighter to people on the moon than it would be to somebody here on Earth, right? Well, where's the stars when it's actually much less bright than the pictures I just showed you? Wait, no, the sunlight is brighter there than it is to us on the Earth. But first of all, they're not looking at the sun. Secondly, we also just saw where the light was brighter on Earth. They're on the side of the moon facing the sun. The sun is above them. And the camera's facing away from the sun. Okay, but... So, there's no real reason to not see the stars. Yeah, let's let Plattswood in here, guys. So, we're kind of taking a poll there. There's another question, though. Based on atmosphere, does it make light brighter? That's in the screen share there. It will include part of the light, the atmosphere will. So, it magnifies it. It just refracts it. In other words, it still magnifies it. So, it would be less bright. It would be less bright. So, why is it brighter than if there's apparently no atmosphere? More of the lumens get to you. So, more of the light gets to you. It's not blocked and scattered by the atmosphere as it comes to you. Okay, but anyway, I just want to ask, because I wanted to find out. Now, you guys were saying that the paper mache is able to block this radiation and things. Aluminum. Is the radiation coming from all angles? When they're moving through the radiation belts or is it just coming at one angle? There are charged particles. I'm not sure how they're moving around. Yeah, it's looping. So, it's looping within the Earth's magnetic field. Like, the charged particles are moving in a loop. And did they have this... To help them out, it shapes someone like a figure eight. Yeah, and did they have this cocoon of, as you guys put a protection right around them or just on panels? Yeah, the whole shift... Their module was shielded where the people were shielded from the charged particle radiation. So, they weren't radiation waves. You understand the difference, right? Doesn't make a difference. Yes, it does. Right, particles doesn't make a difference. It does. This is kind of similar for most all of Flatsoy's criticisms other than the stars thing was that he just doesn't think that the engineers were good enough. Like, he thinks that... I didn't even bring up stars now. This is a total non-secretary. I'm not bringing up stars, man. I'm paying attention to what I'm actually saying here. What I'm saying is... Ryan, can you not share the screen for a second while I'm talking? But... No, he's making my point with the share screen. Well, can we... He's making my point there. Can we start the share screen while... I know I'm making the point right now. I haven't made one point so far. I'm trying to make a point if I could be allowed to make that point. That's under screen sharing, guys. Still might. Yeah, like, nobody can see us talk whenever the screen shares. It's just all on the screen. Okay, thank you. My point has been that all of Flatsoy's criticisms, besides the stars thing... Notice I'm not talking about that Flatsoy. Besides the stars thing, all of the points have just been that the engineering's not good enough. This is what he talked about with the camera. They couldn't engineer the camera to be protected from radiation. They couldn't engineer the film to, like, keep the dust away. They couldn't engineer, like, the module to protect the astronauts from radiation. All of his criticisms are just that they couldn't have possibly engineered that because he doesn't provide... Can you show me the shielding on the camera? He says that because the camera that they used was apparently just a commercial camera. And all of the experience that he shows are just the commercial brand of camera. The camera was inside the module. The module was shielded. There's no, like, radiation on the surface of the moon. Well, there's solar radiation. They get some from the sun. But it'd be like walking down the street with the camera. If you leave it on the sunlight for too long, it can, I believe, mess up the film eventually. But that would take a long time. And on the moon, do you have any of the protection from the atmosphere, from the gamma rays coming from the sun? Primarily, the protection would be from the magnetic field, which, no, you wouldn't have that on the moon. I get it. There's more radiation on the moon's surface. That's why they had to take proper precautions in their engineering. And I don't see why it's possible to engineer for that. Would you explain how they took precautions for that, please? Do you think the device, the casing of the device, provides enough shielding? I don't see how that's a big deal. Did you see what the rest of that is made out of? At some point, I want to address Robert Rebut, Grace, and just give me a second. Yeah, yeah. Last point there, and then we'll pick it over to you, Dustin. Okay, yeah. I just want to know. The composition of what the satellite camera is made out of. Can you show anywhere there where it is shielded from the gamma rays on the sun and keeping the dust out and changing the lenses would be impossible due to that fine particle dust? Gamma radiation. You know how a full camera works? You know how a full camera works? You know how a full camera works? You know how a full camera works? Radiations? This one's a second there. You mean UV? If you know how a full camera works, it would be impossible to be able to change the full in that environment one second from the sun. We've got to let him wrap up his question there, and then you definitely... I'll give you a chance to respond, but yeah, let's wrap up your question there, Flatsoid, because Dustin's been waiting. Okay, yeah, yeah. Just want to say, you would have it to be impossible due to the mechanics of the camera, because it was a full camera, to be able to take the film out, stick a new cartridge in, and not have the dust everywhere, and the vacuum causing the issues with the film, and because of the radiation, thanks to the sun. I do want to address that, but I don't know if we're going to Dustin or what. If you, yeah, if you can do that in like 10 seconds. Yeah, okay, so the camera that they used was not just an off-the-shelf Hasselblad camera. I mean, all your experiments were just off-the-shelves commercially available cameras. It was modified by NASA. It's not just a commercial camera. And to prevent it from dust, first of all, dust doesn't just flitter around on the moon's surface, right? There's very little atmosphere. It just falls back down. It's not floating around on little like air currents like it does here on Earth. So you don't, again, that addresses it. All right, thank you. You don't need any more protection from the radiation that you do on the Earth. Okay, come on. I was in it. We got to hand it back over to Dustin, give him a chance to ask his question. And I think what you just said will spur more conversation. I don't think Flatsoyd's going to forget what you just said. So over to you, Dustin. I don't want to spend too much time on gravity itself, but even Newton did not believe in gravity, and he actually thought it was so great and absurdity that nobody would believe it who had basically a thinking mind. The quote is here. Quickly to rebut, all governments being in on it. Well, they are. Literally, there's an Antarctic Treaty, which is where they started to all get in on it. But it really, excuse me, it really came before that because this is a 500-year-old lie and goes back to Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and these other seansists. And it goes back to learning against learning, which is Cardinal Woolsey's strategy, which is papal-approved, to create fake science and flood the world with it in response to people reading the Bible for the first time for themselves, which was basically what we call the Reformation. It's not perfect, but just this is history. Rome failed to overthrow their Reformation with a military fleet with Spain invading the UK. And basically, people started to read the Bible and break away from Rome, and they wanted to break faith in the Bible using fake science in order to reclaim and maintain their power and will dominance. And that's where we get fake science. That's where we get evolution. That's where we get the heliocentric model of globe Earth, all of it. And in terms of documents, we have tons of documents. We have CIA, Russia, NASA, U.S. Army documents all referring to a motionless flat Earth as the foundation of their science to make it work. We talk about gravity, like for covering lots of topics, like... And you mentioned an experiment that people could do also. I think Grayson mentioned one experiment that anyone can actually do is just Moon presents cold light, test the shadows at night, versus the light at night. The shadows are actually warmer than the cold light of the Moon, which proves it's not reflecting sunlight. It is its own light. I'd like to address that. Proven by lunar eclipses where the sun is still visible, in fact. So I don't... I'll demonstrate what I'm talking about while you address it, please. Yeah, okay. Coming over to gravity first. And then we'll come back to it in a second. I want to address the cold Moon light, if I can. We should cover it bold. Okay. Just on the thing of the cold Moon light, it's pretty easily debunked that it's literally just that you're near things that reflects thermal radiation. If you get away from things, like if you were to cast shade from the Moon very, very far away from where you wouldn't have any kind of thermal radiation being reflected, then you wouldn't observe that effect. And if you just want to make extra certain, do this yourself, Justin. Measure this on a full Moon. Look at the shade versus not shade of Moon light. Measure the difference. And then come back on a new Moon at the exact same locations. Mark exactly where you made those measurements. And you will find the same difference on a new Moon with no Moon light. So, there you go. You can do it in a parking lot where there's nothing nearby that would maintain a difference in thermal mass. And it would be pretty much even... How would you get this shadow? Where would this shadow come from? You'd have to bring your own shadow in order to test the theory. And there you go. Using the thermal. Using the thermal. There you go. You can use an umbrella. You're going to get the same effect. It's got to be literally 20, 30 feet away. Are you going to do that? Do it. Do it with that. And then you'll see what the result is. The umbrella would work. If you hold an umbrella, it would work. Well, you're standing next to it, too. You can hold it. You can hold. You can measure it. And then while you're measuring, it's stick the umbrella in front of it and see a difference. You're bringing it in. It's reflecting thermal radiation. The umbrella is too close. So, it's not... All right. Just one second, guys. We've got to let Grayson have a chance to respond. Just one second for that. So, you cut him off in the middle of a sentence. Redo this on a new moon with the exact same setup. You will get the same results. It's because it's bouncing back thermal radiation from your little umbrella or whatever you're using to create the shade. It's pretty obvious. It's been done where they've cast shade with something that's like 30 feet away and you don't measure any difference. There's no such thing as cold moonlight. Okay. Can I just say something about that? So, you're saying it only gives off radiation when you've got shade there. No. So, what I just said was a complete opposite of that. Glad to add. What I just said was the complete opposite. So, I don't know how you got what I was saying was literally the opposite of what I said. Because the radiation you understand comes from the ground up. Yeah. Thermal radiation can be reflected by large objects that are casting shade. Yeah. So, if I measure something, if I measure the radiation, the temperature, and I stick something in the way that the light changes and it changes the temperature, you're saying it still radiates the same or different. No, I'm saying that what you've stuck in the way is literally reflecting thermal radiation causing the heat up. What you need to do is cast that shade from way far away so that there's no chance that it can reflect thermal radiation, which I've never seen a flat earth view. But the thermal radiation comes down up. Dude, it bounces down from the ground upwards. If you're sticking something in the way, that's not going to cause you from getting a different reading. What you've stuck in the way is bouncing that thermal radiation back. Okay, you can radiate thermal radiation in 360 degrees. Now, the thermometer works. It points that way. It doesn't pick up behind us. What are you talking about, dude? It heats up the air. Direct reality. And so, radiation reflects back down. It's going to heat up that air below. I don't see what all are so against. In any way, this is the topic of moon. I want to, can I get back to quickly the Hasselbeck camera? No, I want to go back to the statement about Isaac Newton that was false. So, we covered something that was false about Sir Isaac Newton before we move on. Sir Isaac Newton believed gravity was true. He just thought there was some supernatural force that was causing that interaction. And then other people thought it was some type of ether or whatever that was causing that, allowing that attraction to happen through some type of medium. So, he believed gravity was true. He just thought it was some type of supernatural force. Now, do you know who CB Boyez is? CB, no. He's the one that introduced Newtonian gravity after Newton died. Because Newton did what not, did not want to be ascribed to it. All right. It says right here he believes in gravity. He just thought it was immaterial. He also wrote like thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of pages on Alchemy. And I'm pretty sure he died drinking mercury. That's all true. It doesn't invalidate anything that he said about gravity. He says gravity goes to motive and agenda. He says right here, he says, gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws. So, he thought gravity was true. He just thought it was caused by an agent. That's what he's saying in your own quote. But they can't show an agent. They cannot demonstrate an agent. That's fine. It's an invisible power that is sort of a gravity was real. So, he still believed gravity was real. He just thought it was caused by an agent. Well, he admitted here that you have to have an agent to have gravity and there's no such agent. It's a debunked theory. And he did not want it published until after his death for a reason. Can we quit this? Yeah. Do you see the thing is? Okay. Do you see the thing is he knew because he... Gravity's not a debunked theory at all. Okay. First of all, you would agree if equals MA holds true. In certain non-relativistic like settings. No. If you always require forceful mass to accelerate. That is not true. Also, if F equals MA does not hold true for light, you need to use a different formula. So, no. What is light? It's not like a minute or two. What is light? Are we really getting into a debate about what is light, flat soy? This is supposed to be about the... You're saying if equals MA doesn't work with light, so what is light? It's an excitation of the electromagnetic field that's quantized. We're on the moon landing subject. There's a foundation of false science that can all be picked apart, such as gravity, heliocentrism, movement curve. We could go a lot of ways. And it's all built on sand, I think is the point. I would like one minute at some point to address some of the things we've talked about. Like, grab. Sure. If you want to go ahead right now and expound some ideas, but if you wanted to get into, I think you had mentioned before we started, there was some historical stuff that you wanted to talk about as well. Yeah, there's an agenda coming out. Yeah, there is an agenda behind it. And this occult overlay to Newton is not a one over. It's pretty much the theme. It's the pattern. Rome has a bunch of occult seances that are inventing her so-called science and actually comes from things like Hermes Emerald Tablets, which he's obsessed with and translated. He actually read in there, quote, it's, and it's talking about the sun here, its force is above all force, for it vanquishes every subtle thing and penetrates every solid thing. It's just paganism, trying to replace what had been been understood by every other religion on earth, including the Christian religion to be a flat central geocentric, not moving, you know, young earth. I am gonna ask us to pull it back in and try to focus on the moon landing, because I know we are getting a little sidetracked on some of the other topics that we do discuss on modern day debate and we'll certainly arrange those debates in the future if you guys are interested. But for now, let's try to focus on what happened in the 60s and all the things that were surrounding that. So if you guys can, yeah, let's try to focus flat, so I'd over to you. Okay, yeah, so would you guys say you'll be able to demonstrate us your moon landings violating the second law of thermodynamics? It doesn't. It does. What's the second law of thermodynamics? That entropy increases in an isolated system. The universe is an isolated system. There's other systems inside the isolated system. We don't know the universe. An open system and closed system is part of thermodynamics. But it's not a second law. We don't know if the universe is a closed system. We just treat it as one. An isolated system is just a hypothetical. You do not actually have an isolated system in reality. Yeah, and the second law, guess what? Only applies to an isolated system. Thanks for debuting yourself, Latsoid. False. Go look. I can show you citations from MIT, from every university in reality that shows every single system who uses thermodynamics. All right. I've taken thermodynamics. The first thing you learn about the second law is that it only applies to isolated systems. Okay, what about Jules' expansion of free gas? Do you know what that is? It's not on the topic. Makes it more of a rule. Oh, you just said you studied thermodynamics. Jules' expansion of free gas is part of thermodynamics. We're supposed to be talking about the moon landing. You're trying to change the subject. Yeah, which debunks the moon landing because you cannot listen. This debunks the moon landing because it's in Narnia that violates the second law of thermodynamics. In Narnia, it violates control. It's magical science. It actually supports it, explains why we have a gas pressure gradient as we go up in elevation. Scientism. That's Delta X, yeah. Sorry, I was going to say. Do you know what Delta X is? Change in position. Great. So gas pressure gradient comes off the gas pressure, which first requires containment. You're really hoping to... No, why? Does gas pressure... If you got a tank, if you got a tank, can you measure the gas pressure difference from the top and the bottom of the tank? Can you measure it? What's the size of the tank? Let's say it's four feet tall. Is it enough of a... Right? You probably can't. You understand. You really literally made a point. A tank. You probably can't. Okay, but can you measure the gas pressure difference on Earth? Does it go up in elevation? Yeah, I wanted to bring that point up is that you actually graph the atmospheric pressure. As you go up an altitude, it gets closer and closer to zero asymptotically. So when you're at space, it's not like you have this huge pressure differential. It's gradual. I mean, you guys would have the burden of proof. If you say that it stops at some point, you would have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it does terminate and does not just continuously asymptotically approach zero, which is... Again, pressure gradients come off to having the gas pressure, which has really needed the antecedent of containment. So you're hopping to pressure gradient so you don't understand... Gravity. Gravity is the containment. That's what contains the atmosphere on the Earth is gravity. Why do we got a screen share about fucking opioid aluminum? Because they don't follow the scientific method and less than 1% of actual scientific journals actually use the scientific method. I will ask because this is the last screen share. So it goes to credibility. Because we've had a lot of screen sharing. And 98% of statistics are still... I don't get to talk much. I'm just trying to contribute. But basically, it goes to credibility of the so-called science, which most governments agree on most of this other bullshit here as well, or did at one point. So I mean, it's all lies. It's all lies to your detriment. Okay, I'm not... It's all lies by a liar. I'm not going to do debates about tobacco, mercury, opioids, aluminum, calcum. So you're just dish-galloping. Can we please stay on topic? So the debate is about... The credibility of world science. So if your credibility is being harmed, why not stay into the topic you agree to? So we're talking about your credibility, Dustin. If you'll notice in my opening, I cited things from non-scientists, from amateurs that had done this themselves and verified for themselves that the moon landing happened. So that didn't involve any scientists. That was amateurs doing this for themselves. And you could, too, if you had the will to get this equipment, set it up for yourself and learn how to do it. All right, we're going to inject a while, Kurt. Guys, I don't want to put you on mute. I don't want to put you guys on mute. Just one second. I'm going to ask us to do something wild. Let's go back to 1969, Apollo 11. Let's, like I said, let's try to focus on that mission and what exactly was going on with that. Just, like I said, try to focus this in a little bit more because we are getting a little bit out here when we should be here. Can I give a minute towards... Can I actually answer why they did it for just like a minute? Sure. If it's about that topic, that would be great. Yeah, let's try to get into it. The agenda was to sell the whole cosmology to the masses so that they would fall away from Scripture, from the faith. It's actually called the Great Apostasy and Prophecy. Oh, sorry, wrong one. I need to find this particular one here. Anyway, the point is that... Scientist, right here. Rome, as I mentioned earlier, was basically at war and they introduced learning against learning, Cardinal Wolsey. And these guys were all into the occult. And that's when we get into all of these so-called scientists, which are seances, including Copernicus, including Galileo, who was a Psyop. He supposedly was a heretic, but real heretics were burnt at the stake with their Bible tied around their neck for daring to read or translate it. They weren't given comfortable retirements. And all of their math is filled with 666s everywhere. It's just nonsense. How to rest is comfortable retirement. Okay. You're Gish Galloping. Who cares if Galileo was part of the CIA? Moon landing. Well, they faked it to make you not a living god. That is comfortable retirement. If you consider it, you would be burnt at the stake. Most Christians believe in the moon landing. Without these five or six people, nobody would believe in this. These are the six or so people who sold it to us. Most Christians believe in the moon landing. So, you're just saying they're not true Christians? They're not reading the Bible, no. Oh. So, they're not true Christians. Oh, wow. God says the Bible is flat. So, listen to this. All the Christians there... You believe we went to the moon landing? He thinks you're a fake Christian. I just think they're not reading the Bible. I just think I'm going to defend myself. I'm a proud Jew even though I'm not. Yes, everybody. Stop it, y'all. That's just what we were doing. We're going to keep focused. Shut up about the J-word. Seriously, shut up. We're trying to stay on subject. You want to talk about retro reflectors? Cannot finish. Okay. So, anyway, yeah, I would like to have that Flat Earth Bible debate with Dustin sometime against someone. But for now, I'm still on the Hasselblad camera and still on gas pressure and still on the dust on the camera. But first of all, like he's saying, they are... The credibility is short, so you can't accept that. I'm saying you don't have gas pressure or containment. So, that's a shot. The Hasselblad would not work there. That is shot. The LM, it can even go on to that. Do you know how much times they tasted the LM on Earth? Did they get it successfully to work once on Earth? The Lanny Module? I'm not familiar with the story of the Lanny Module. They did... Never once. They have successfully landed, what, six or seven of them now at least on the Moon? Like just the last year they've landed them on the Moon? Your point is they're landing them on the Moon in 2023. My point is that the retro reflectors... I was still talking, Grayson. We're on a topic here, Grayson. I know, and I'm saying... The LM, not the retro reflectors. I'm expressing what you said. The LM. That's what I'm saying. Just let me finish talking here. Okay, the retro reflectors show that the mission was... He's taking away from my argument here for retro reflectors. I'm not, dude. I'm trying to address it. Let me finish a sentence. Remember the LM, not retro reflectors. Yes, I know. I'm talking about that too. If you let me finish my sentence, you'll see. I was still talking to Ozean about the retro reflectors. The LM was designed for the gravity of the Moon so go ahead. No, no, listen. They tested it on Earth. Not once did they get it right. The first time they got it right was on the Moon. Do you know how absurd that is? You don't even get people to be a pilot on a helicopter if they aren't able to land once. I think they had simulated modules. They had simulated modules. Okay, so you're saying that for their lander that was designed to work in one sixth Earth gravity that they weren't able to successfully do a test in six times the gravity it was designed to land in? Wow, shocker. The fact is that we can test the retro reflectors on the Moon and that tells us that the mission happened. Again, retro reflectors is not what we're talking about. We're talking about the lunar module now. Retro reflectors has nothing to do with the lunar module. They use a training vehicle. So let me share a screen of the training vehicle. Do you know how they try to replicate one sixth gravity on the lunar module on Earth? But in water? No. Then how would you do that? They used rocketry and they used suspender cables and they still couldn't get it right because it's just too unstable. Now you want to tell me they aren't able to get it once correct on Earth but they can go to space which violates the second law of thermodynamics and land a lunar rocket perfectly the first time without any problems. And we know that they did that because the retro reflectors are there. We can verify that. The Russians were able to reflect things of the Moon before they even went to the Moon. There's a practice lunar module. That's what they practice with on Earth. I want to just one few. I want to address the point that he just said that they were able to reflect things off the Moon. There is a difference. One is an EME, an Earth-Moon-Earth transmission. It is a totally different temporal signature than an LLR which has to go through the retro reflector. Okay? These signals are meaningfully different. And what's the difference between the two? Again, their temporal spread is completely different. What's temporal spread? An amateur can bounce a signal off of the Moon itself like off of the regolith of the Moon, the Moon's surface. An amateur can do an EME but an amateur cannot do an LLR because of the amount of precision and the power of the laser that it takes. They're different signatures than that. What is a temporal difference? I want to know what that is. The temporal spread is like basically if you have a really long spread out signal versus a very short, very exact signal that's like maybe one to ten... The wavelength. So the wavelength, the wavelength. The time spread of the signal. So is it the wavelength that changes or the time it takes to travel? The time it takes to... Like the time that you are receiving the signal. Like you're receiving it for a few seconds versus like a few microseconds. Like the actual signature of the signal is different. Like the 4A transforms give like a different breakdown. Relevant to modern training modules. What you guys are talking about training modules I just wanted to share. Yeah, go ahead. Well, even today they mean that even recently as the 1960s the flight director admitted that they had such good simulation technology that no one could tell the difference even the pilots. So when we're talking about the so-called like simulation and technology they used to train with, I mean this includes stuff that they can't tell the difference between the real and the fake anyway. But how can you fake the retro reflectors? Again, he's talking about the alien. I think the astronauts would be able to tell that they were on the moon. So... They would. Yeah. That's why they got caught in so many lies and conflicting stories. Well, they didn't lie. So that's the claim that you made. They who told the truth. I supposedly can't all be telling the truth. Supposedly you can read their mind. No, you pointed out lies about seeing stars. We already covered why you can see like if you're... I just want to say, I like the velvet version of fake reality. The velvet space is kind of cool. So you asked a question like how can we believe this stuff? How anybody could believe we went to the moon. But you believe in all this other stuff that you can't demonstrate at all except using the Bible. But anyways... Can I ask you a question? Is that fine? Yeah. You said they never lied. It was caught on camera footage where they doctored so-called 130,000 miles away from Earth where they're holding a partition in front of a window and you can see the astronaut going between the camera and the Earth where they literally just took high-altitude footage and tried to make it look like the whole Earth. I'd have to say this is actual footage. Do you know the example Grayson that he's talking about? I don't know what he's talking about now. I would need to see... You could make up conspiracy theories. Just make them up. Make them up. And we don't have any way to refute them. So we have no way to refute them. It was supposed to be three days out. It was supposed to be three days out. I always study the actual evidence. So if you're going to point out like these other conspiracies, you would have to present the evidence for it. And none of that could possibly explain the retro reflectors that are on the moon. Or the fact that they the scientific equipment left behind by the Apollo like the Soviets did. You're believing some Soviet lies probably. And secondly, that experiment nobody's going to go through trying to do. Now, mine is easy to do. Grab a thermometer, check the shadows. You'll be all right. On the other hand, I can't agree also with the camera angle because most people aren't going to... I think it's a weak angle. We have some stronger things to focus on. Just respectfully, flat and soy. And basically, in terms of cosmology science, I'm happy to go into any of those rabbit holes, including the history. But in terms of the moon stuff, like I said, I kind of cram study this one today. Specifically, I'm a little rusty on my moon landing stuff. However, I can debunk NASA's credibility. I can debunk science's credibility. I can go through multiple branches of science and debunk them. I can even show you where it came from. And I can follow the lineage. Dustin, that's why in my opening, I specifically highlighted non-NASA, non-scientist amateurs verifying that the moon landings happen. We have a lot of those too. And they can show that there's no curve when they go up as high as possible. Why aren't you publishing papers, Sandra, that refutes all of science? I have a whole archive. It's called the sarapayum.com. You have a blog, dude. So how did you do your testing? I have an archive. How did you verify it? What was your independent, dependent variable? Like, did you do that? What was your H.O. and H.1? What were all these things for the paper that you published? It was in science. In everything science, right? We don't trust fake science because less than 1% of those active papers use the scientific method. They don't use science. We're using actual science. They actually admit that they don't use real science. So what was your independent, dependent variable? Oh, he's not doing that, or me. Did you take your fifth poster yet? What? All he does is have a blog. Okay, racist. On second hand, let's move on. I'm married to a Chinese woman. I'm not racist. I'm honest. And certain people don't like that. That doesn't make you not racist, but certain people don't like that. Can I ask a scientific question? No wonder why. Kanye was right. Can I ask a scientific question? I'll let Classo ask his question. Yeah, okay. This is for you, Ozin and Grayson. Can you show us the science for the moon landings, please? I covered, like, the engineering required to do to... Engineering's not science. I understand that, but it requires the fundamental physics behind it to be able to do the engineering to go to the moon. So you have to be more specific. What exactly? Like, you want to talk about how they went to the Van Allen Belt? How they... Orbital mechanics. That's not science. Yeah, understanding radiation requires science. It requires... Okay, national observable phenomenon, please. What's that? Natural observable phenomenon, please. Step one. National observable phenomenon. Like, we went to the moon. So to me, it's an historical argument anyway. So the question is, is it physically possible that we went to the moon? The answer is yes. No, it's not. It violates the second law of thermodynamics. Oh, it doesn't. You just don't understand the second law of thermal dynamics. Again, do you know what the joules expansion of free gas is? It's partially translucent. It's plasma, a light source. So we're talking about the second law of thermal dynamics, right? There we go. This shows that you can see the moon and the sky behind it. Right now, Dustin. Well, you can't land on something that's not solid. Right, but we're not talking about that, right? We can talk about that. You can swim in it. It looks pretty solid to me. It all looks pretty solid. Then why does it change colors with the night sky? It's like when I look at an atmosphere, if I look at a skyscraper in the distance, depending on the atmosphere's conditions, look at the skyscraper, it can change colors. It can become included by fog. But I believe this thinking skyscraper exists. I can walk up and touch it just like we walked up and flew up and touched the moon. But you can't lose it over the curve after four or five miles, which the mass says you should be able to. No, you don't understand that there is an atmosphere that can refract light. Well, you can reflect light, but even so, even on non-foggy or non-foggy nights, it's equal. You can see the color behind the screen. Okay, your specific claim was about the moon. They don't like evidence, man. Your specific claim was about the moon. Changing colors and being included by fog and stuff like that. Why can't we look at buildings in the distance and see the same type of phenomenon? But we don't call the buildings fake, do we? Dustin, what you showed was not evidence. That just wasn't. It was pictures of the moon at various times of days. Which is evidence. We're talking about the moon. It doesn't reach a conclusion. Okay, I think we're getting about this all wrong. You have to provide evidence that the moon is a physical rock orbiting in a natural-violating space. I did. The lunar laser-ranging experiments. There are observatories all over the world that are physically bouncing laser beams off of the retroreflectors that were left by the Apollo crew. I've gone over that. You haven't explained how, what's the difference between the temporal changes. You can't even explain because you don't understand what that is. But you're trying to say that's evidence. You asked that already and I answered it. Because people went to the moon and walked on it. People brought material back from the moon and I, yes. So that's how we know it's real. Check into their insurance claim. You have to deny all the other stuff to get to the point. They denied the insurance claim. Because it was fake. Look at this shit about some insurance claim. The petrified wood was literally one example and nobody had a chain of custody that went back to the Apollo program for it. It was just a gift that was given to such prime minister. They still got a capsule in the laboratory which has never been opened till this day from the moon landing. Okay, we're still getting lunar material back from the moon and it tests different than any material on Earth. After so many years, why haven't they opened the capsule if they're so eager to show the moon dust? This is the first time I've heard about this capsule. So I don't know, Flatt. So it didn't dust and already bleep? And what about all the data? I mean, even Don Perdizzi, all the data went missing and now it's a painful process to bring it up again like that. They just opened it last year. So that's false. They opened it last year. Last year, is that so? In 2022, the space agency saved the lunar dust, dirt for scientists working in the future with more advanced technology and they opened it last year in 2022 to investigate it. Oh, really? And I don't know, this is going to go for every YouTube. Mr. Beast, he just had a billionth, I think, three days, four days ago when he went to NASA and looked at that capsule, which has never been opened yet. Maybe he filmed it before 2022, Flatt. So I don't know what to tell you. I have one minute. Three days ago, okay. Every time we give you one minute. I'll share it. Wait, Dustin, every time we give you one minute to talk, you say like the craziest stuff I've ever heard in my life. It doesn't make it not true. I know it sounds crazy. I don't expect you to believe it. Well, let's talk about this capsule. I'll pass that, which is true, like I said. Wait, this is debunking a claim in real time. So another conspiracy theory claim that I wasn't prepared for, they opened the capsule and they see it helps them because they're going back to the moon. They can use that because they can create better vacuums today to be able to investigate the material in the capsule. But Ozi, didn't you know that Mr. Beast's video, he's a good source counter to this? Oh, I know. Yeah, because Mr. Beast's video shows to everybody that your claim you just gave is debunked. Let's see when Mr. Beast did the video. I said it a couple of days ago, but we don't know when he films it. He films on a staggered schedule. So he filmed this two years ago. I don't know when he filmed it flat. So I heard about that and I didn't watch the Mr. Beast video. Oh, wow. I guess I'm not qualified to talk about this at all because I don't watch Mr. Beast. But anyway, that's not the point of the whole debate. 60 seconds. All right. Do you have something to add there? Over 10 months, it was two years ago. There we go. Can I get 60 seconds? Two years ago. All right. We'll let you have a moment there, Dustin, since you did follow and drop out for a moment. Yeah. Thanks for that. I hit the wrong button or something. Anyway, I just want to speak to not just NASA symbolism, but all of their symbolism, not just the NASA equivalents, but the military tribe patches everything, all of the different units, space force, everything. They all use the serpent's tongue speaking through a flat disk as their symbol. They call it the vector. And I also want to show this real quick. We can barely hear this. Basically, they destroy their technology. They can't get back to the moon type argument that NASA's official spokesperson is talking about. However, I agree with the whole video. Wait a second. Do you agree with the whole video? No, I think he's aligned. Are you sure you're picking? So he's lying. So he's lying the whole time. So you lied. NASA's credibility is broken. They didn't destroy the technology. They may have destroyed the equipment that they used to go to the moon, but not the technology, because technology is just the knowledge we have. Then why would it be a painful process to build back? He's saying he lied. He just messed back up. Yes, he is complete. They're all liars, but I'm telling you in their own words that their lies are frenzy. That's a good point to make. You're using the testimony as somebody who you believe is lying. Your own credibility is lost there. No, I'm showing that their credibility is bogus. No. When you show a liar lying, that's not saying that you're a liar. So he lied about us destroying the technology then. So we do have the technology. No, I believe that the official lie, you're missing a lot of the point, but the official lie is just so darn hard to believe that it is kind of bogus. Or it's an introjuly argument. You're using a source you believe it's lying to try to prove that he's telling the truth. Yes, we have already cross-examined the astronauts and their spokespeople, and we have found them to be liars. That is false. Also, you've not cross-examined them. You haven't put them on a witness stand and question them. That's a lie. You're lying there. Okay. I didn't say that I did. I'm using their actual public statements, their claims, their testimony, which is showing that they're a liar. No, but that's not what you said. You put them up. I didn't say anything about putting them in court. You did. You keep saying court. But actually liars can be cross-examined in the courtroom, and you would find that if they have conflicting witnesses and testimonies. So you're lying. You did not cross-examined them then. I never said that. You lied. Are you done? Yes, you did. Are you trying to like... All right, let's end the screen share there. Well, we're not on topic. You're talking about the credibility of... Of your liars that have given you all of your science. You're talking about the credibility of sailors, airmen, soldiers, and seeing their liars. Most of those guys think it's flat. You're saying they're lying. No, they don't. That's another lie. Yeah, these guys are all free. I went to an aviation. These are all Freemasons of the tribe of Edomites, the one Jesus warned us about, that is actually behind all of these lies, and they keep getting caught in different lies. How do you know any of this is true? You deny the moon, but you believe the Earth is hollow, and it has a dome, and it's flat. Oh, is that it? Dude, you're getting a bit triggered here. Okay, why in 50 years has no one gone past low Earth orbit? What we've been to the moon... We went to the moon last this year, in 2023. What are you talking about? No person has been past low Earth orbit in 50 years. No, that's not what you said. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Okay, y'all have all been talking, I've been silent. Does anybody know anything about the upcoming Artemis missions that are sending people back to the moon? I mean, what are y'all going to say when those happen? Maybe people go back to the moon. What are you going to say when those happen, and everybody's watching them in the middle of the moon? Did you watch the movie Gravity? 10 seconds on that. Did you watch the movie Gravity? Yeah, it sucked. They're all named after pagan entities for a reason. The Nimrod, the Artemis, the Athena, the Zeus, the Apollo, all of the shit's pagan because they're pagan satanists. That's symbolism. Okay, so your argument is that the Artemis missions are going to be fake because they're named after a Greek goddess? I'm telling you that NASA is faking all this stuff so that you won't believe in God as they set you up for final destruction, including with other things like the jab. All right, so all of your web of conspiracies, it all comes together and it all corroborates itself because of some crazy, you know, some people have a shadow cabal and controlling a secret shadow. You should have studied me first. Absolutely. And I can prove every bit of it. I can prove they're Satanists. I can prove they sacrifice babies. You can't prove any of it. I can prove they've been kicked out of 109 countries for a unicorn. You can't even prove Satan exists. I second. Yes, I can. You can't. I've actually won those debates. And I would love to have your irrational. I would love to debate you on that. However, yeah, absolutely. They're Satanists and you can prove every bit of it. They've been kicked out of 109 countries for killing babies. You don't understand what proof means. First of all, if you think you can prove Satan exists. 109 evictions found guilty in courts of law with monarchs of law. That's insane. I mean, it's not it's not false, though, is it? Yes, it is. Can I ask a question? Who owns the whole space agency? So I come at this from a scriptural perspective. Dustin, the question was not for you, bro. The question was not for you. There are multiple space agencies. Like there's ESA. There's NASA. There's ISRO. There's the Chinese one. There's the Japanese one. There are all over the world. They're owned by different people. Why do they all have the same symbol? Different people. They don't have the same people. Same people. The same people. EDOM owns them. The Edomites own every bit of them. That's why these are the same symbols. A serpent's tongue speaking through a fourth disk. They don't all have the same symbol. This is just more of your racism and frigging. Dude, I'll pull it back up for you. Hang on. You might want to do it. Every symbol, you showed like four symbols, dude. Okay. I'll look at the Chinese based symbol. Let's look at that. You might want to look at the company. You might want to look at the company behind all those companies. I have a lot. I have a lot more of their symbolism breaking down each military patch, space force, everything, all branches, everybody, every government, all over the world, all using the same serpents, fourth tongue through a flat disk. It is their symbolism. It is the UN logo. It is the map that they actually use. So you can deny it all day, but the fact is we're on a flat, non-rotating earth, and they are Satanists, and they're of a particular tribe. Well, I got the Chinese one up. It doesn't show any frigging red lines symbol. And you're just looking at like, like the one, there's a circle. Like it's an open circle. You're calling that? No more screen shares. I mean, it's just ridiculous, dude. It's all relevant. Not 100% of this is relevant. No, none of it's relevant. You're just seeing, you're drawing a conclusion. You don't want to go past. You're looking for evidence that you think supports your conclusion. You don't want to go past your microcosm. You've already reached a conclusion. You don't have evidence for any of it. I have tons of evidence for it. In fact, I hope that I don't lose this debate, but so far I've never lost a debate, including on biblical earth, including scientists, including, by the way, a scientist who wrote a big book called Flat Earth, Flat Earth Wrong. And he even wrote a cosmology. Let me break in here. Let me break in here. The guy who wrote Flat Earth, Flat Wrong, is not a scientist. That's Robert St. Janus, bro. He got his PhD from an unaccredited Vanuatu University that's now defunct. And it was in his knowledge, actually. But he sure speaks to lingo. Anyway, he tried to argue that you could zoom in. He's not a scientist. That's the point. I have won my debate against Robert St. Janus, too. It sounds like you want another debate, sir. Yeah. Well, if I wasn't afraid to demonetize for the crazy shit you've been saying. Okay. So that's my question, then, is Grayson. Just because the institution folded, does that make his PhD no longer credible, even though he's gone through the whole process? It's never credible, because it was a non-accredited university. He was unaccredited. Great. So his PhD was in theology. So he's not a scientist no matter how you slice it. And it's not even relevant to this topic. You could be a scientist without a degree in that. No, this is relevant to the topic because we're going to do this according to Dustin's argument. NASA's credibility is shown false. So, therefore, anything you want to claim of them going to the moon is false. That is why, in my opening, I explicitly excluded any NASA evidence. I only looked at independent third parties and amateurs for all the evidence I presented. And their credibility is not refuted. You just deny their conclusions. You just deny what they say. You deny their actual statements that contradict with one another that cannot possibly be made to swear. They didn't contradict each other. You took it out of context. You cannot possibly make them swear. Either you took their statements out of context. I thought you said those strange things. Can't you even, like, follow the rules? This is a whistleblower. This is a NASA whistleblower I'm trying to share. Let's talk. You're literally just sharing memes you saw on Facebook. Gus Grissom was murdered five days after blowing the whistle on their fake space program. I'm sure, bro. But I can't share it. So, you guys research it and test all things and hold fast at what is true. It's good advice. Test all things. Okay, so what is the actual rebuttal to the retro reflectors on the moon? You can't go to space. You place the retro reflectors there. You haven't proven gas pressure without containment checks. I already said gravity contains the atmosphere on the Earth. And gravity is not a force. I think it's a lie you've never tested. The retro reflectors, you think that they've never been tested despite that there are observatories all over the world that test this stuff hundreds of times a year. Okay, what's the moon? Like the one in the Vatican named Lucifer. Yeah, those. All right. It's all just Satan, I'm sure. What's the moon, Grissom? No idea. What is the moon? Welcome to the Seed War, everyone. All right. It's the celestial body that orbits the Earth, bro. How are you even asking that question? I think what we should do, guys, because we are once again kind of spiraling off the topic. And I feel like we're going to have to do some work on this post. So, just bear with us, guys. Let's get these super chats up and read out some of these super chats and respond to them. So, there's lots of them coming in. You can continue putting in the super chats. We'll keep the super chats rolling. We are going to do an after show on Matters Now. So, if you want to come over there and check that out, that'd be fun. Let's see here. Congo44 says, sad, fake Christians, we have been to the moon. I think that's commentary on calling people fake Christians and saying we have... And then he says, after that, we have been to the moon. So, any commentary? It's just more... I'm not a statement that's talking to... Let's look at the flatzoid in here. Go ahead, the flatzoid. Based on this statement he just made, the Bible specifically teaches against the heliocentric model. Therefore, the moon is not a physical rock in a space violating unnatural law. And most Christian scholars disagree with you. So, I guess... Well, most Christian scholars ignore historical fact in the Bible. I'm sure that they're all saying... They have improper hermeneutics. They don't read an actual literal hermeneutics. So, here's a metaphor to them. You're more educated than the top experts in Christianity in the world. You're better. They're welcome to debate me. You're more educated. Okay. They're welcome to debate me. Good. I'm glad we confirmed that you're more educated than the guys with PhD in theology that are Christian. Let's let flatzoid in here. Flatzoid? Okay. Then I'm going to ask you a question, Joe. In Joe, they asked God to stop the sun from moving so he can finish the battle. Did God stop the earth from moving or the sun from moving, please? Also, they're having a shortage of actual scientists who can cognitively function at college level. Science is not what you actually believe in. Yeah. Right here, for example. Are you projecting a little bit, baby? Here's AP news. My goodness. I can't share evidence. I'm not really getting more screen shares. It's been a lot of screen shares for one debate. Come back. Well, science is firmly against so-called official science. I mean, it's 95% government funding. Worse than fake news, in fact. But you know the truth. You're the expert. You know everything. You like to attack me rather than my arguments a lot. I think I know who that comes from. You keep attacking the knowledge of everybody else because you think you have special knowledge. Yes. Well, I think I studied harder. That's all. I think I don't know everything. Yeah, you study harder than the sciences. Sure, bro. What sciences? That's his old point. Do you haven't grew up science yet, guys? There's been no science presented. I can give you quotes from Einstein and the other modern sciences that disagree with you as well. But I mean, you won't accept it. I can't share it. They don't disagree. All right, next one. Let's keep going. LJ, reminder. LJ, yes. You're here for the right debate. Always commenting with Flat Earth questions. And it's a globe. You're in the next one. Not a Flat Earth debate. Well, it's not a Flat Earth debate. But usually, LJ is always hanging out for those. We finally are doing a moon hoax debate. Glad you're here. It's basically a Flat Earth debate, though. I'm going to sip this beer if you keep... No, I'm kidding. All right, so I'm just picking Grayson. If the moon is bright enough to be seen at 238,000 miles away, how did the astronauts not get blind when landing on it in quotation marks? Reflective light. So the sun is where the light comes from. So the moon light is reflecting off the regolith. And it's what you call an albedo. So as you get closer to it, it's actually going to be less lumens for the part that's reflecting directly back to you, I would think. But anyways, that's why it's coming from the sun and reflecting off the moon. Any thoughts down there? I mean, yeah, cold light debunks that. And lunar eclipses when the sun is still out also debunk that. I just love how they still pick the question of a physical rock, which we cannot demonstrate in reality. We brought rocks back. Translucent moon also. You brought back nothing, because that was actually tested by the insurance companies on the claim and it was found to be bogus. And in fact, fake. It was just petrified wood. All right, Congo 44. Yep, we're going to carry on there, gents. Congo 44. Two questions for Flatsoid. As an expert in thermodynamics, please educate us all about Maxwell's demon and how can we bounce a signal off a retro reflector left on the moon? All right, so I'll let you answer the first one. We'll take five minutes on the panel and pass it around. So thermodynamics, please educate us all about Maxwell's demon over you, Flatsoid. Maxwell's demon in simple terms is just separation between the particles. That's about it. It sorts itself out. Okay, it's got to do with the increase in entropy. That's practically what Maxwell's demon. You can imagine a demon with a partition opening and closing the partition and letting certain particles through. That's Maxwell's demon in very simple terms. And no one ever claimed to be an expert. I just know enough to show the globe debunked. And I just want to mention Albert Einstein quote, 1952, whether or not the motion of the earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments, all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. There's a little bit of a skip there to kind of close it in, but they admit it that they can't prove it. And they're top scientists hawking everybody. They're all admitting it. Yeah, what was that key word there? Terrestrial. Whenever you're looking up, then you can see things that corroborate the motion of the earth. So you also make a great point in terms of terrestrial perspective. I want to mention that there's not a single photo of space. I'm sorry, a planet Earth ever. It's all CGI. There's the sex and the cloud, all kinds of stuff. There are earlier stuff was art. Modern stuff is CGI. You can zoom out on Google Maps. There's no actual curve. There's no actual photos. You're once again quoting people you think are lying. You think you're lying. I didn't quote anybody except Einstein, who admits that you're wrong. You're taking Einstein out of context and you're misquoting him. And what you think everything else he believed is a lie. But you're showing you how your scientists lie. You're cherry picking part of a quote. And seeing this cherry picked part of his overall quote. People see three of you, brother. People see three of you. I'm definitely going to give you a chance to respond to this. Part of the quote is true, but the rest of what he says is false. Okay, can you show us? Can you show us that picture? I'm showing the discrepancies in your supposed scientists, brother. No, you're cherry picking. You're being dishonest. You should be honest about the claim. Well, we can't go through everything they've ever said. You should be honest about what Einstein is claiming. So Einstein believes that the moon exists. Einstein believes that space is real. Einstein believes that there's a vacuum in space. Einstein believes that... Also believes you can't prove it. Einstein believes the Earth orbits the sun. So Einstein says you can't do it from an optical thing from the Earth. He believes you can't prove it. We can send satellites to space. He believes you can't prove it. You can't send satellites to space. It's all CGI, and that's why they have sex, and they're clouds, etc. There's like 30 different versions of the blue marble. In fact, Einstein said you can't prove any of this emotion. Einstein's honest. Einstein's true. He believed all that stuff. Einstein admitted and they cannot prove motion in his own quote right there. Any thoughts over there, Grayson, before we go back to Flatsoyde? Haven't heard from you in a hot second. You're a liar. Oh, Grayson is frozen. You are a liar. I thought he was focused, but he is frozen. You're a liar, and you're of your father, the devil, and the truth is not in you. Grayson's back. Okay. Christianity is false. So if you want to have a biblical debate, you can do that next. I spanked Adam Green on that debate. I've spanked other people on that debate. Jeffrey Doherty, I've spanked him on that debate. I love those debates, brother. Wow. Yeah, that's awesome. Gold medal for being modest. Yeah. That's very political. I'd love to be part of that debate, too. I'm working on that. All right, Flatsoyde, let's see if you could do it to the panel again. Okay. Second part of the question. Also, how can we bounce a signal off the retro reflector left on the moon? That's for you, Flatsoyde. What is the moon? How do you get a retro reflector on something that you haven't even been able to prove that you can get to? It violates the second law of thermodynamics. Simple stuff. Been through this. Okay, so he asked what the moon is. And then I want to ask Grayson and Ozean. I want to answer the question. Well, I know Ozean. Now, where's a photo of the moon, of the Earth from space, please? Just because Grayson was frozen, I'll give Grayson a chance to respond first, if you don't mind, and then we'll let you answer, too. There are plenty of photos of the Earth from the moon. I mean, the Japanese probe just took one just a couple of years ago. I just did, if you weren't paying attention. Not one. But in particular, the question was, obviously, the fact that we do bounce signals, lasers, off of the retro reflector on the moon, shows that, in fact, we did go to the moon in the Apollo program. That's what that evidence demonstrates. I just want to mention a quote from Stephen Hawking in 2010, so much more recent. If they have to deal with the... Can I actually finish? Can I finish? You're always close to more memes. That's all you guys don't like evidence, apparently. I've summarized it for you with pictures and infographics. That's what that is. But anyway, quote, one can use either picture as a model of the universe. For our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the Earth or the Sun to be at rest. That's Hawking. I can keep going. Sure. Relative motion. But what is the moon? Is 43% oxygen, 20% silicon, 19% magnesium, 10% iron, 3% calcium, 3% aluminum, 0.42% chromium, 0.18% titanium and 0.1 to manganese. That's according to NASA. According to all of the actual insurance companies, they say it's 100% petrified wood. Okay, well, here's the photo that y'all were wanting from, from the Hukuto R Lander. All right, it's your first screen share. I'll let you get away with it, because I think... There's no stars. Only your second one, I guess. Sorry, here's a picture of the Earth with the moon in the foreground. There you go. Japan's Hukuto R Lander, before crashing the moon, had this photo. So that's the crash before I provided exactly what you were asking for. It's no stars. Is it a photo or a rainbow? It's in the screen share. There's no stars. That's fake. Is it a photo or a rainbow? Is it a photo? The absence of stars does not make it fake in any way. Yes, it absolutely does. It's just the exposure of the photo. They would absolutely work, they would work better in a vacuum than they would in a contained air bubble, which is what you point on with atmospheric refraction and such. But if you're in a vacuum, you can see the pinpoint, just like if you're on a mountaintop. Dustin, next time you want to test that out, go take your photo, try to take a picture of the night stars, and then put a giant flashlight right in the foreground and let me know if you get any stars. We covered that earlier. I shared an image, different slides, with different colors and light scenes, and you can see the stars in all of them, just depending on how bright. So even when it was fairly bright on the day, you could see it. There's no bright object in the foreground here, it's just tiny little planet Earth, and no stars. And the moon is not that bright. No. It's not as bright as what I showed you earlier, not even close. When it's taken up half the screen, it's pretty bright when you're trying to take a picture of the Earth. You're not going to be able to see, because you're trying to get a shot of the Earth from the moon. Those two objects are going to dim out the stars behind them because of these. It's far more convincing. All right, let's let Flatsoid respond. The question was for Flatsoid, so if he's got something to say, let's let him talk. So I want to know what camera did they use, Grayson, to take that rendered image, because it's not a photograph. Whatever was the Hokuto lander? You probably know it better than me, right? What camera did they use, Flatsoid? You're the one that brought it up, so I'm asking you a simple question. I don't know. Look at the resolution as well. Really weird. Why is that weird? We've got lots of questions coming in here, guys, so let's see if we can wrap this all the way around. LJ comes in again. The lunar model was constructed with items available at the dollar store. Google it. Why would NASA destroy the original Apollo lunar landers? And in the interest of time, we'll try to keep these to the side that they're dedicated to. So that one would be for Grayson and Ozean from LJ. I mean, it's just completely factually incorrect that it was constructed with stuff from the dollar store. So that's just kind of like a little gotcha or whatever, and I don't even think that they destroyed the lunar landers, did they? There's one left. Like, it hasn't been used, I believe. All right. I don't know where they're displayed in museums, but again, we show that the moon landed from third-party independent sources and the retro-reflectors. That demonstrates that it did happen beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt, and our opponents were not able to refute any of that evidence. All right. I'm sorry, Dustin, but you've lost your first debate. I do have... It's up to the commenters, friend. That's up to the commenters every time. I do have a hot one coming in here if you guys want me to, if you don't mind, they're Dustin. Hey, glad so we find the kind of tin foil. He can make a hat. I don't mind at all. I just stole a panel of the lunar module. Mayem Marie says, why do Flat Earthers come to debates and say they didn't prepare much? Is it because you know you don't have evidence? So without evoking the actual responder, what would you say to somebody who would say something like that? Well, James, you can be my witness. You just recently asked me to participate in this. I'm used to doing, as everyone can see for themselves, other types of debates, a very different variety of... diverse variety of debates, including global Earth debates, which I'm still undefeated in, and I'm not bragging. There's a lot of things I don't know, but this is what I've studied. This is what I do know. When I was a lifelong devout atheist until I studied this, it was the last thing I studied. In fact, I thought it was stupid, just like you guys do. And then I tested it, and then I stopped thinking it was stupid, and I said I can't attack it anymore, and I started to defend it. So we all, all of us so-called Flat Earthers, you know, I prefer Biblical Earther. We believed one time what you believe now, and we didn't come back from what we learned to that belief system for a reason. Once you go flat, you never go back. That's the truth of it. Any thoughts on that, Tony? Yeah, I 100% agree with Dustin on this, but it's as simple as that. Even me, I don't usually debate Moonays because I'm more for the Flat Earth kind of cosmology thing, and the fact that they aren't able to back up their claims that you can violate natural law shows everything. We don't really need to show more than that. No one's ever claimed to know everything, but we do know enough to show the globe is fake. That's your claim they're violating natural law. No one's violating any laws of physics to go to the Moon. Demonstrate Gaspers, that's what's going on. That's your claim. The Earth. Yeah, it's contained by gravity. And if you want, there are over 5,000 documented exoplanets. Most of them have atmospheres that are contained by the force of gravity. If you are interested- Gravity is not a force. It is not a force of 180 years already. If, Flatsoid, if you are interested in any other kinds of pressure being contained without a physical container, but with a force, look at surface tension, look at- You can look at- The tension on liquids is not the same as gas. Tension on liquids. It is a fluid. And then you can also look at a penning trap that uses like electromagnetism to contain charged particles without a physical container. But not gravity then. So, yeah. Not gravity. Again. And the gas isn't really contained, by the way. Flatsoid, stop interrupting me, please. All right. The five seconds they're getting- I'm sorry, wasn't this too long? We do have to move on- Wasn't you asking the station? It is to them as well. You were not- Yeah. I was answering Flatsoid. I'm interrupting you while you guys are in this place to talk. He's not letting me- Just one second there, Flatsoid. Give them 10 seconds to respond, since we've gotten this far in your back and forth. But yeah, we're gonna try to behave ourselves. All I was illustrating was when you can have a force acting as a container. Gravity is a pseudo-force, but you can measure it just like any other force in newtons. You can have a force that's containing fluid pressure without a physical container. That force is acting as a container. Surface tension, electromagnetism. You can look at gravity doing it on other planets. There's pressure, great. There's pressure wave generators that like really generate waves of pressure that don't need any container in our atmosphere. So, there you go. There's a few examples. Can I give a closing statement? There's pressure in that cup. I have something to say on that, too. Yeah, can I give a closing statement on this? All right, yeah. Each of you can have 15 seconds. That's fine. Yeah, if you jump in a swimming pool and you swirl the water around in the swimming pool, say, see, I'm swirling around the water, therefore not containment. Is that swimming pool contained or not? The total swimming pool is contained, but the pockets of localized, higher, and lower pressure that you've created with your movements are not contained in a physical container. Can I get 10 seconds? He just contradicted yourself. Yes. Like I said, Grayson, we're going to try to keep back and forth. Well, he asked me a question. I know. I know. It's fine. We'll try to keep it down. I hate to interrupt you guys. Low, because we've got lots of questions there, but it's okay. Go ahead, Dustin. I want people to understand our position on gravity. It's not that we don't believe in up and down. Things fall. Obviously, this happens. It's that we don't believe in water clinging to a cannonball shooting through a vacuum, basically, with air clinging to it, and we don't feel a breeze, and nothing pulls off into space. And in fact, at the speeds they're telling us, it would look a lot more like a droplet of water shooting through space with a giant ocean tail sticking out behind us. None of us believed that either. None of us saw this panel believed as true. None of us. That's essentially it. And also, I've also noticed a trend. Just five more seconds. Five more seconds, and you can talk. I've also noticed a pattern of people saying, did the Bible really say what it said it said, or did the scientists really say what I just quoted them saying? I want to just mention there's a deception happening here, and people can judge that for themselves as well. All right. Quote mentioning, that's the deception. Next question is for you guys. So if you've got any other commentary, you want to ask them a question, that's fine, but we're going to try to keep these questions to the side that they're for. And yeah, if you want to branch out, that's up to you guys. Next one is for you guys, so it's up to you. From LJ, how would a lander made a foil keep from exploding? And that's how he wrote it out too, so I had to say it that way. What? Why would it explode? He's probably seeing the pressure within the lander. So the lander was designed, I think, for a quarter atmosphere of pressure. So it's like going down three meters below water. That's how much pressure. So if you've ever been to a bottom of a 10-foot pool, that's how much pressure that's being pushed outward to the lunar module. So a sheet of aluminum foil wouldn't even break. And it's not a sheet of aluminum foil either. You can visually see it's paper thin on the actual official lander photo. And it's also bent and crooked, and there's not even matching screws and straps and such. And literally, they actually didn't finish it. They had insulation. You understand they had insulation too. The aluminum was the shield from the charged particle radiation going through the Van Allen belt. But now you see the insulation. Even the one astronaut says it's so thin, he could stick his finger through it. There's panels where the corners are taken out because they forgot to screw it. So if you took a sheet of aluminum paper to a bottom of a 10-foot pool and pulled it up with the sheet rip. Surface displacement. What does sheet rip? If you're sending people into space, would you not screw in all of the corners? With the sheet rip, the aluminum foil rip? No, it wouldn't. So that's how much pressure there is. The outlet pressure to the shielding is a quarter atmosphere. It's equivalent to going down three meters. Sorry. You're going three meters below water. The water's pushing on you from the outside. If you're in a vacuum, there's nothing pushing on from the outside. Well, it's pushing out. So the quarter atmosphere inside the container. And nothing pushing down. Correct. It's only a quarter atmosphere of pressure. That's it. This is what happens in a vacuum. Anyone who's been in an airplane knows this is fake. Paper will not survive atmospheric push that would be necessary to get into fake space or even to just fly a jet. Show me the math for that, Dustin. So the lander was inside the lander itself was encased when it went to orbit. Just show me what you're talking about. Then why was it rattled then and why were the sheet metal all loose? The lander was enclosed. It wasn't exposed to the atmospheres. It went to space. Last thought to you, Grayson, if you got anything, we're going to move on. Yeah, our opponent is either put up or shut up. Give me the math. Give me the models. Or just don't say anything. Let's move on to the next question. We have lots of questions to get through. We're not going to be here for six hours. All right, dude. Let's get through the questions for sure. We got lots of them. All they have is math and models. Dustin, not your time to talk, bro. Yeah, let's try to get through them. But I will also remind everybody I got to do the modern day debate PR as well. Hit the like button if you haven't already. If you're having fun hanging out in the live chat. Tomorrow we are going to be doing a flat versus globe debate. It's Mercedes and Kyle versus Leo and Mark Reed. Justin's going to be hosting that one and then be doing the after show, which we'll be doing one for this debate as well on Matters Now. So definitely if you want to check that out, that's cool. If not, that's all cool too. Let's carry on with the super chats, everybody. And like I said, thank you so much for the support. Free free Palestine says, what star was used in the inertia navigation system in order to go to the moon? Please CGI globe lovers, don't ignore the question and welcome to flat earth. All right, what was the question? What star was used? What star was used in the inertia navigation system in order to go to the moon? I don't know. Do you guys know what they're referring to here? Polaris, mate. Okay. Inertia navigate. So how did they navigate to the moon? Like they knew where the earth was. They knew where the moon was. They used general relativity to get to the moon. But the point is- That's a great topic. Let's look. They used 37 stars plus the sun, moon, and earth for navigation. So 37 stars. They used the list includes stars named Navi, Rigor, the NoCs. So 37 stars and sun, moon, and earth. There you go. For the aside question. How did they get the orientation, guys? We can see the moon. I don't- Everybody usually uses- We know the order to the moon. To orient, so. We use- Polaris is used for a lot of- For earthly navigation to go north. So we know where north is. You don't have to see Polaris to navigate the earth, especially with GPS. That's another topic. This seems like a useless segue. You only need to see three fixed things to be able to navigate. It's really funny how the only time a question did not spawn a huge discussion was the time that Ryan walked away from the computer and we can't go to the next question. Yeah. But also, you just admitted that they're fixed. They are indeed fixed. Yeah. Polaris is always the same place every year, same precision clockwork. Yeah, not a few relatively fixed- The moon- No, it's perfectly fixed. It actually- There's ancient archeological ruins where they have a pinhole that goes like 10 feet, lines up same year. It's all my history challenge. You can find those. Even the same as the beginning of time. All right, I think, Grayson, you had a thought there. This is for you, so you can inject when you need. Yeah, Polaris was not always the North Star. It's not even the exact center of which the celestial sphere spins around. It's just a little bit off-center and it changes. It's not always constant. All his little ancient aliens, pyramid stuff has been debunked so many times at this point, and it's not the topic. It lines up every year exactly the same place down a like a 15 foot, 10 foot shoot with like pinhole precision. And it lights a certain chamber on the certain day of the year in some of these ancient ruins, which is actually a fairly common practice in fact. The cause, it is not a cannonball covered in water, cannon shooting through space, followed by a shotgun blast. Well, no one believes that. That is exactly the official model. No, it's not the official model here. It's lying about the official model. And also- We've established who the liar is here. Something's moving. Yes, the same question. Something's moving. You can see a different face of the sun. So either the sun is rotating because you see a different face of the sun, right? Or the earth is going around the sun. One of the two is true. No, we could go into like the final word on this question. We could go into the various wobbles and such and how they're completely nonsense. You think the sun is CGI then. Okay, good. They actually claim three competing wobbles. All right. I hear the plea of Grayson. What's going on, buddy? You had something to say or sorry? Yeah, I'm saying that we were supposed to have the final question for this one or the final statement for this question because it was a question to us, right? So I'm saying let's move on to the next question. Sure thing. We should definitely do that because we do have a lot of questions. That's what I'm trying to do here. All right. All right. I can tell Grayson might be in a bit of a hurry. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to put on a one minute timer, guys. And we will get through these super chats. All right. So question for- Oh, sorry, Congo 44. No ad-homs, all right. We want questions that are going to kick our conversation in the butt. All right. Thanks for your first super chat, Toby. I did it on what I just said. Free Free Palestine says the anti-Kathara mechanism is evidence that the Greeks knew we are one beautiful family on a non-rotating flat earth in the center of the whole universe. I think that was for you guys. Okay, I can respond to that. One minute, guys. Yeah. The anti-Kathara mechanism doesn't have anything to do with the shape of the earth. The ancient Greeks from Eritostanese onward knew that we were not on a flat earth. And the builders of the anti-Kathara mechanism were in the Hellenistic age like after Eritostanese. So they were also aware that the earth was not flat. You don't need any of that to build the anti-Kathara mechanism. All right. 40 seconds left. It's based on geocentric principles. It's not. Yes, it is. You might want to look it up, mate. Anyway. I will well wear anti-Kathara mechanism. You're just talking out your butt about it. 25 seconds over here. And if you had anything to add? Yeah. All right. Pointless poppy coming in. So lightning isn't real because people once believed lightning was created by gods. Referring to comments on Newton believing in gravity. Yeah, I think that's for you two down there. Is it? Yeah. I don't think I understand that question. Let's repeat it. So lightning isn't real because people once believed lightning was caused by gods. Referring to comments on Newton believing in gravity. Oh, okay. Well, we have a better natural sciences answer for things now. Knowledge has increased in the age of the internet and such. And there's more truth tellers now, frankly. They were killed for saying a lot of this stuff throughout most of Roman history. So frankly, things have changed and that's kind of why this stuff is coming out when it is. Used to die for reading the Bible used to have your whole life. Your whole family would be burned at the stake with you for daring to translate it because it didn't agree with Rome's official science or official, whatever, because they had a lot of power and they were basically selling middleman ship to salvation. It's a whole different topic. But basically, you know, this doesn't seem to be like a sarcastic remark than a question. Well, response, I guess. So go ahead. It's over the flat side. No, you can respond. It's fine. Because all I was going to say is I forgot my whole train of thought now. Sorry. Go ahead. The whole point of the comment was just showing your argument about Newton, what he said about gravity can be applied to what ancient people said about lightning. They're really quick about lightning, though. Like lightning requires atmospheric pressure to be true, gravity to be true. So our understanding that an actual law is understanding of lightning requires all this other physics and stuff to be true. So yes. We can show what I wanted to say. No, it's over the flat side. Sorry, Dustin. He didn't get a chance. Then now I want to say, first of all, I want to say the statement, because it's a more statement, not a question. It's a non sequitur. And it's totally got nothing to do with one another. Gravity is not a force, by the way. And gravity is pseudoscience where they believed lightning was a belief system. It was not based on science. It's just like a flastogen was considered a thing because of pseudoscience, and today it's not. That's why gravity was considered a force, and why it's not a force today. That's why it's not science, pseudoscience, because it's a belief. We're going to move on from there. Just 10 seconds, if I can. I want to address the lightning aspect for five to 10 seconds, basically a taser analogy. If you turn a taser this way, it will still connect lightning without any sort of gravity mechanism. If you turn it this way, it would still happen the same way it doesn't need gravity for electrical discharge to happen. I didn't say that. It's playground. That's beside the point. And they shock static electricity. That's the point. Well, that's basically, I think, as I understand it, this argument. All right, let's move on there, fellas. So question for Dustin and Flatsoid. What year did you, you know, come and go, that's not, that's also just being cheeky. Why are you sending all these cheeky super chats in? I want to read them and have fun with what you're doing. But this is not the time. Not the time. All right. So, yeah, sorry. I can't read that one either, buddy. Gay as Tuske says, if I had a drink for every time Flat Earth or moon landing as a hoax were actually demonstrated, I would be a Mormon again. So we'll release one of those. You guys are being real comedians in the chat. You know that? Like there are Mormon Flat Earthers. Well, Kyle's going to be hanging out tomorrow. And I do believe that he's a member of the LDS church there. So let's see. He can correct me on that. Maybe he does go by Mormon. I'm not sure. LDS, he goes by LDS. Okay. LDS says, if the moon was a stupid dusty rock, why doesn't gravity pull it down to earth? Why don't we have real videos from earth of asteroids hitting the moon? Over to you. Let's answer the first one. It's because of the moon's orbital speed. All right. There's a balance between its orbital speed and gravity. So where it's moving fast enough to where it won't just get sucked in. And then what was the second question? So, yeah, gravity. And then the second one. Why do we not have any asteroid videos hitting the moon? Asteroid hitting the moon, videos of that. Well, we have seen impacts on the moon. We've seen before and afters of new impact craters on the moon. Well, there is one. Here's a watched any footy captures meteorite impact on the moon. So I could show it. There's on NASA's website. No, no screen shares. But yes, if you want to go check that out, anybody, you go ahead. We've had so many screen shares. I've got to mitigate that. Let's see. It's literally all coming from my one guess. 20 seconds if you guys have any other thoughts or let's move on. Yeah, apparently, according to your guys narrative, the moon is moving away from the earth, not towards it. So yeah, but it will make it worse and worse by 3.8 centimeters per year. Yes. All right. Let's carry on, guys. Free free Palestine says rockets can't get high enough to show the mythical blue marble. Be smarter. Test the pseudoscience curvature formula and be happy on a non-rotating flat earth. So the main part of that assumption, I was listening. But basically, it made a claim that rockets can't do something that we've demonstrated that rockets can all tonight. So that claim can be dismissed because they didn't provide any evidence for that claim. And then, yeah, they actually, yeah. Ozine, do you want to take a look? No, that's what I was going to say. It's like the mood landing proves rockets can go to space. So yeah. I mean, we've been taking a look again. Taking no proof you're wrong. We've demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about with the second law. The experts, the experts in physics or the laws of thermal dynamics, all of them, the experts believe we went to the moon. So the experts like Einstein and Hawking say that you can't prove movement. They all believe we went to the moon. They are liars. But they can't prove movement. They lie sometimes. You've got to understand what you're just saying. Oh, when they run into something they can't do, they're like, I can't prove it. So I would say your testimonial platoid to me is irrelevant because you're not this way. You have to be an expert. No, no, the second part of that question. Let's put it this way. That's natural law. Does national law care what you believe? What? Does natural law care what you believe? Um, no. Great. So I don't give a shit what they believed. It violates national law. So they put it wrong. I understand the law better than you do. This is the point. Ozean, I just want to make it very clear that we've clearly demonstrated that flatsoy doesn't understand the second law. He thinks that it applies to not isolated system as it clearly does. He also doesn't understand that forces like surface tension, electromagnetism or gravity can all contain gas pressure. So that doesn't violate the second law at all. Gas pressure, corner, surface tension. Well done. Ryan, what was the second part of that question? Gas pressure is unbunded. It cannot have surface tension. All right. So you're speaking out of your hands again. All right. I'm getting asked a direct question. I didn't get that question. I said pressure. So there's, there's no second part of it. They just said be smarter, test pseudoscience, curvature formula. So the main part of that was they said rockets can't get high enough. But if you had something to say, go ahead. Yeah. I wanted to address this whole curvature formula. Just one second, Dustin. We'll pass it to you before we're done. Okay. I wanted to just address this whole curvature formula that flat earthers erroneously use all the time by pretending that the atmosphere doesn't exist. Every time that a flat earther uses a curvature formula, they never account for atmospheric effects like refraction, which you literally have to do. That's part of the globe model. They ignore the presence of the atmosphere. Every time they use this bogus curvature calculator, every time they never account for refraction. Well, the things like the Suez Canal, which is 100 miles of straight canal and water surface unbroken would disprove the need to use any sort of culture. Oh, it wouldn't. However, I want to just mention something about Newton, if I may. You guys are talking about some math and how the math would work. Here's basically how it went down. Newton made up gravity. Then they realized the calculations all lead to a giant singularity where all of the universe gets squished into oblivion. So then they made up dark energy, which is basically anti-gravity. But then the calculations now showed everything will move away from each other until dark energy rips apart the very fabric of outer space. So to balance both, they made up dark matter to hold gravitons and dark energy together. It is all lies. Nope. That's actually completely ahistorical and not how any of those developments happen in cosmology. Like according to your opinion, you're wrong about every single point that you prove it. It's literally God of the Gaps. Prove a Gish Gallup is false. Okay. Yeah. In like a minute. All right. Okay, we'll move on. Firstly, just to be ridiculous. Einstein did not. I'm just explaining it right now. Last night's to you Grayson. 10 seconds. Einstein did not add his cosmological constant to avoid some kind of singularities, right? Swarshild was the one that worked out like the existence of black holes after Einstein had already put in and then taken out the cosmological constant. So no, that didn't happen. The dark matter was theorized like way before dark energy was, way before the cosmological constant even was, like back in the 1800s. And then they were adding, they were adding it in back when they were studying the cosmic microwave background. So no, dark energy was not added back until 1998 when they observed the accelerative expansion of the universe in type one, a supernova observations for which they won the Nobel Prize. So your timeline is completely wrong on every single point. Demonstrate all of that. However, I just basically want to add that all of these people have been using the same occult textbooks that go back to basically the pre-flood teachings like the hermetic texts of Thoth or Hermes, the so-called Green. Well, let's have it debate if God is true. Which Michelle and Newton was basically not only declassifying. Next time. I'm sorry. He was translating, but he was also obsessed with and that's where he pulled his cosmology. Newton was the last of their so-called mystery kids or sages or whatever they want to call in the occult world. He was not a real scientist. None of that is true at all, except for the fact that Newton was super into alchemy. But guess what? Opinion holds as much gravity as movement. But guess what? That doesn't make him wrong about his other laws. Like we don't say we should throw out calculus because Newton was into alchemy. Well, your opinion holds as much weight or gravity so to speak pun intended as the moon landing. So prove it. Yeah. So good. Then I'm glad you think so highly of my opinion because both of those hold weight. Thank you. Ryan, next question. All right. All right. You guys are very lively in that chat down there. It's good to see. Just almost over 500 still watching and only 100 likes. I don't know if you guys got lazy thumbs or what, but I'm not impressed with that. So hit that like button if you guys are enjoying yourselves. Clearly you are. You're still hanging out. So let's carry on with the super chats and keep them flying in, everybody. Let's see. As I see what we got. Atheist Junior says, for flatsoil and dust, and how do you explain lunar sunsets? I haven't heard from you in a little bit flatsoil, so I'll kick it over to you first. Lunar sunsets. First, you have to beg the question that there is such thing as a lunar sunset. And I don't know what the sun or the moon is. So I can really make a claim of it. Dustin, any thoughts? What are you, Dustin? I would like to share a screen, but basically the lunar eclipse debunks any sort of sunset or lunar or eclipse type arguments. You can still have the sun out during a lunar eclipse. One last screen share. Something else is shadowing out. I like to listen to it. One last one if you need to for your example. Without like a good direct answer for what you're talking about. But in a short moment, I mean that's basically going to rebut the argument that they're making. This has nothing to do with the question. Repeat the question. Okay, now I'm going to open up another thing. For flatsoil and Dustin, how do you explain lunar sunsets? What is a lunar sunset? Like a sunset on the screen share. Sorry, what did you say, Grayson? A sunset on the moon, I believe is what he's referring to as a lunar sunset. Yes. Happens once a month. All of the moon footage is faked. And in terms of the actual light transitions and different moons, the moon days, for example, like I follow the Sabbath like the Old Testament says, and I keep the moon calendar to do so. So I watch the moons for their phases. That phase thing has been happening in perfect synchronicity since the beginning of time. Every seven days you get either a full moon or half moon or an empty moon. Just to be clear. For signs and scenes. That's what I'm telling you. It's God's clock. We're looking at it from below, looking up. And it changes light and sort of ellipsis, so to speak, depending on season. And why can't you make it? Grayson had something. Ozean just one second. Grayson. Just to be clear, the only thing that you just said that actually addressed the question that was asked was it's fake. So I'm addressing where the moon and the sun are. And you're talking about like apparently the light eclipsing on the moon, which is all in the desert. That's all fake footage. So I mean, you have no actual proof we went to the moon and we pretty much make this debate. And frankly, like I got to talk about a lot of other topics that are absolutely fundamental and connected to this topic because your entire cosmology is built on a castle of sin. Why does it clock above us going in circles? Why doesn't the why don't the if God was like setting this up, why didn't he set the phases of the moon? Like 12 total phases of the moon would totally match one year. And it doesn't. It's off, right? Sorry, you know, we're working on the Gregorian calendar. No, that's so relevant. So the calendar that we use is so relevant. Actually, the book of Enoch warned us about that. If we don't use that, the seasons change. So you actually think the seasons are supposed to change? Book of Jubilees and I think also the book of Enoch warned us about us changing the calendar. And then that would make the moon out of season, out of sync. However, the moon basically changes light based on the day. So you think that like holding it over a flashlight. You think that the winner should change every year, like every year by a week. Do you know how the Hebrew calendar works? Or by, you think that you think or I think it's two weeks, right? Or no, 360 days. So you think the winner should shift five days every year? Is that what you think? No, I think that based on our modern calendar, the moon and the we actually have to do things like daylight saving. No, the winner doesn't shift. We have to change and add zodiacs and such. So if you actually use the original 364 or was it 360? I forget a calendar. It's perfect. And it syncs up perfectly. Not perfect. But that doesn't match the number of months. It doesn't match your months. Like a month is what? How long's the month? It's supposed to be 13 months. Originally it's 13 months. How long is a lunar cycle in your math? All right. Question. All right. Flatzoid's been trying to get a word in here. Oh, is he on one side? Flatzoid's trying to get a word in here, guys. It doesn't match. Let's let's let's wait. And he was saying something about the calendar and let's let him expand on that. Originally it was a lunar calendar with 13 months. The Gregorian changed that whole system and that's why it's out of whack. Gregori, by the way, translates as fallen angels or watchers. Etymological fallacy. Do you know what that is? I know it wasn't based on them supposedly, but I just want to mention that little coincidence. The interesting point is 29 and a half days is a month, like a lunar month, right? We have our modern seasons on our modern cosmological calendar. The Gregori calendar are off. That's why we have things like the savings time and such. Well, that's that's a different reason is to change the number of hours in the day. It's because it's not synced. It doesn't matter. The clock is off. The thing that we use to adjust for the seasons is a leap year. So if we if we didn't have a leap year, then every four years, the seasons had to change the clock. One day that is that the do you think daily savings times has to do with the season? Exactly. This is the savings time. Right. It has to do with the times of businesses winding the clock. I just want to make sure the times of businesses are open. Winding the clock. See, I always thought it was farming. Which keeps leaping forward because they're on a rock calendar. Let me just make one point. I can lie to you. I just want to make one point. Five seconds, everybody. I will take five seconds. Regardless of whatever calendar you use, any calendar you want to use, the length of the year is 365.2422 days, whatever calendar. According to the Hebrew calendar. And it's wrong. It's their calendar. Okay, we're moving on. We're moving on. I think it's like, is it the cycle of the sun or around the earth, right? Or whatever you think. We're moving on. Just hold on. We're going to move on from here, guys. All right. We still got a few super chats to go through. I said I was going to set one minute timers and then you guys were having such fun back and forth. So I mean, I just kind of let our panel a little bit. Sorry. No, sorry. Can I just say? Not this time. I just want to say. I was going to say I'm going to put my generator off. So I'm going to black out for like two, three minutes quickly. Okay. Oh, okay. Yeah. I was going to say, I thought you were going to add to the discussion. But yeah, if you got to drop out, that's no problem at all. Okay. I'll be back now. I was going to say we have to move on. Yeah. All right. We'll see you in a second. Yes. No problem. All right. I misread that, guys. Don't mind me. All right. I was like, no, no, no. We're going to move on. So let's see if we can get some here for you, Ozie and Grace, and get these ones banged out of the park. How does, how doesn't it violate the second law of thermodynamics? Because the second law of thermodynamics is for an isolated system, which the Earth sun, moon system is not isolated. It's so the second law does not apply to it. Just definitionally speaking, it doesn't apply. But when we actually look at like the atmospheric pressure as you increase in altitude, what you actually observe in real life is it gets lower and lower and lower, trending closer and closer to zero. So by the time you're getting out to deep space, it's not like you ever have an instant where you have this dense atmosphere next to a vacuum, right? It's a gradual decrease, asymptotically approaching zero pressure. All right. Ozie, any thoughts? I just kind of vacuum isn't considered zero pressure either. Vacuum is below a certain tour value. That's why I said asymptotically approaching zero. Thanks. All right. I would like to mention just something on the second law of thermodynamics. It's absolute proof that there is a creator and that there was a beginning because nothingness did not produce high precision everything yet according to the second law of thermodynamics. Everything is winding down. Good. It must have been out. 10 seconds. We have no energy left if the universe was eternal. I don't believe there was ever nothing. Just respond to that. Good. Let me just respond to that really quick. Yeah. Oh boy. Down a different. You guys are logical models that have periods of non metric time. So again, nothing is necessitated that no big bang, no cosmological model currently states that the universe came out of nothing. That's a total straw man, not part of the theory. So yeah, he's wrong on all funds. Everything has a beginning. Nope. No special pleading then. There's actually nothing in all of the reality is evidence of there being a creator because everything is winding down. No. According to the second law of thermodynamics. There's actually nothing in all of physics that necessitates that the universe had to have a beginning. There's no empirical support for that either. So you're incorrect. It's the first cause argument. There has to be an argument. With heat death, there's still time. So when everything winds down, time still continues into the future infinitely. There's no end. Okay. If I say X, If I say X created Y, I'm assuming the existence of X to explain the existence of Y. If I say X created X, I'm assuming the existence of X to explain the existence of X. X causes Y. Nothing plus nothing equals nothing. Nothing plus God is everything. All right. One second. One second. One second. We're going to agree on this then. Second law of thermodynamics. There is no metaphysical argument that there needs to be a first cause. Metaphysical foundationalism is only one of several equally valid alternatives such as infinitism or coherentism that are viewed as being equally valid in the field of metaphysics. So you're just wrong. There has to be a beginning for everything. Oh, wait. And first law of thermodynamics says that energy and matter can either be created or destroyed. So you ignore the first law in favor of the second law. So if you go by the first law, nothing began. It's all always existed because it can't be created or destroyed with disputes God existing. If you want to use the laws of thermodynamics, God can't exist. The universe has always existed is basically an infinite path. We're back everybody. Which violates the second law of thermodynamics. No, it's a Ripper's tralemma. You either have infinitism, circularism, or foundation. You have like a first cause. So there's three options. They're all equally. There has to be a first cause. They're all the average problems. No, they don't. There's no multiverse and all of your hypotheticals here. I didn't mention multiverse, did I? So I mentioned all of these infinitisms are not logical. They're not logically consistent. There has to be a beginning to everything. In fact, are logically consistent. No logician will agree with you. We're on the second law of thermodynamics. You've got to agree to finish his point. He was just in the middle of a sentence again there. It's all right, but it happens. But yeah, they are in fact not logically inconsistent. Even Christian apologists like William Lane Craig will fully admit that they are logically consistent metaphysical infinitisms. And again, nothing in physics shows us that the universe had to have had a beginning. I already explained to you why the second law doesn't because there couldn't totally be periods of non-metric time in your cosmological model. So according to the laws of thermodynamics, I forget which one, but basically all energy, although you can't destroy it, becomes more and more unusual. So it's all winding down to nothingness or stillness, even if it's still there, even if it's still a rock, it's going to not be moving soon. That's basically what the... I don't think you're understanding what they're talking about. I don't think you're understanding... Which means infinite time is not possible. Deep time is not possible. There's an expiration date. You can have non-metric time. I don't think you're understanding that. You can have time and you can not measure time or you can measure time, I guess if that's what you mean by metric. But time is time and it has been consistent since the beginning of time. Is that going to allow thermodynamics? Does it disprove an infinite future? It disproves an infinite past and an infinite future. Everything is winding down. Definitely doesn't dispute the infinite future. There's a beginning and an end. A beginning and an end. You can't prove that. Yes, you can. It's logical. Yes, you can. The only logically consistent cosmological standpoint. But you accept the first law is true. You accept the first law is true? Do you accept the first law in thermodynamics is true? Do you know the ontological premises? Ask, answer his question. Yeah, logic. Flat needs a turn too. I exist, reality exists. Answer the question. Do you accept the first law of thermodynamics? I accept all the laws of thermodynamics. It's a natural law. That energy cannot be created. Naturally. God is supernatural. Okay, now let's put it this way. Do we exist? Yes. Yes. I exist, reality exists. Are we natural? Logic is true. This is what I'm asking. Do you know what the ontological primitives are? I exist, reality exists. Logic is true, logic is true. Either we were created or we created ourselves. Yes, which one disagrees with the first law? It's a false premise. Nothing has to be created. Those are the only two. That's what's called ontological primitives. There's only two logical observations. Oh, there's the third one. It's not a false economy. If you go to a beach and you see a beautiful boat sandcastle, do you logically deduce someone made that sandcastle or did it create itself? Because I have empirical evidence of other people making sandcastles. It could have created it. It formed naturally. It formed naturally, created this new material. And material can't be created or destroyed in my model. Energy. Yeah, over to you, Dustin. Energy and matter and heat. Over to Dustin. Can't be created or destroyed. It can only change states. Just one change between. One moment. So the first cause or law of cause and effect, basically, I said it earlier, but this is a different way of putting it. If A, there are things which come into existence, such as the universe alongside time, matter, and space. And B, which means everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by something else. Then C, there cannot be an infinite series of past causes. Therefore, D, there exists a first transcendent cause which did not come into existence. In other words, the first cause always existed. Hence, E, nothingness did not produce high precision everything yet according to the second law of thermodynamics. Like I said, everything is winding down. My turn. Just a minute. And also, so F, without God, we would have to believe that pure nothingness void produced chaos, which then, against all the scientific laws we have, produced complexity and precision order everything, which is. So, do I get an hour? Which is a reversal of entropy. Do I get an hour? You both take one second flat, so we've got to head Ozy and respond. Do I get an hour to move on? And say why I disagree with every single one of your premises? Do I get an hour, Ryan? Do I get an hour to rework his argument? Okay. Now you're just being funny. All right, let's move on. I'm not being funny. Like, I'm not being funny. All examples of causation we have are physical. Boom, physicalism is true. Can we have a debate? Can we set up a debate on this subject? Because I would love that. I have no problem with doing that. But let's carry on, guys. Let's try to keep it on. How are we to put it on? Moon landing hoax. We have the whole India moon landing thing. We got 1969. There's lots of stuff to talk about right now, right here. So, I'll just try to keep it in step, guys. Like I said, hit the like button, everybody. If you're watching right now, you haven't already. You lazy thumbed ma. Anyways, let's see. Megalyn says, it was impossible to fake the moon landing pics with the technology available at the time. That's for YouTube. Kubrick would disagree with you. Star Trek was doing it pretty well even then. Y'all are a joke, man. Star Trek and Star Wars are far more convincing. Tell me again why Kubrick was called an S.I.O. I can't even understand what you're saying, so I repeat yourself. Kubrick, you know, Kubrick is. Yeah, Stanley Kubrick. Actually, my favorite director of all time. And he's known for what exactly? Great movies. Eyes wide shut. No, it's basically reality. Special effects. Special effects. And why was he part of the moon landings? Well, he was not part of the moon landings, actually. He was. Yes, he was. Him and Disney. Him and Walt Disney. All right, you asked a question. You got to be fair. You asked a question. You can't just ask me a question and then immediately start talking. All right, we already solved that. Go ahead, Grayson. Okay, so Stanley Kubrick was consulting with NASA for his movie, 2001, A Space Odyssey, that came out before the moon landings. All right. And again, so he was practicing. No, 2001 doesn't look similar to the footage from the moon landing. They don't look similar. 2001 is better than the moon landings. Oh, it's not. So if they were going to fake it, why would they not make it look like it was on? Or I mean, they'll just come off. It looks so fake. It has to be real. Your position is not rational at all. If Stanley Kubrick was really brought in to fake the moon landing, guess what? He wanted to put out 2001 at all. All right. He was a, how can I put it? He had a tendency to be very particular. He had an OCD. That's true. So they brought him in to fake the moon landing for a particular way. That's why it's done a certain way. If it's done in 2001, share the same similarities of the moon landing. All right. Cameras with optics can't create like as detailed images as CGI does either. Next question. You're dealing with different things. Yeah, we're top. All right. We're getting on the cameras again. So let's move on because we have discussed this, I think. So yeah, let's carry on, as you can hear them about to say. As I'm trying to read through them, make sure that we got ones that are substantive. Question for Dustin and Flatsoid from Kango 44. Thank you for putting in an appropriate question there, Congo. It's a question for Dustin and Flatsoid. How do you hold your science denialism position whilst on a video call on the internet? It's technology. It's not science. I am a big fan. I'm a scientist. Go ahead, sorry. Sorry. Just want to say, he doesn't know what science is. It's not science denial. Technology is not science. You get technology based on scientific evidence, but it's not science. And also, the scientific method is something that I think we both, Flatsoid and I both have a great appreciation of. But what they call science is basically just like what they call news. And it's all fake. In fact, fake news is less funded by governments than fake science, which is around 95%. If you want to get ahead in this world, it's evolution. It's climate change. It's the jabs from Edom. And it's all this gravity and cosmological lies. That's basically the way to get ahead in science. Yeah, we know your world view. Let's go to the next question. Like making more races common favorites. Edom means them. Did I miss something? It's in the book of revelations, prophecies and times, the Gog and Magog war, how they take over our nations. Brian, let's go to the next question. Get it to the J.K. He's not bringing any racist remarks. I don't know why he keeps bringing up racism. I did say I would. That's what they always do. I did say I would do it. Anybody if they brought up any other things. So let's just try to be careful because I said I don't know everything. But yeah, let's just carry on. L.J. Maroon 1969 film had HD quality and tech. The Apollo 11 Freemasons who set up the first fake mooning scenery actually copied this movie a bit. Google it. Thank you for the super chat. Do your own research. We'll make James more money. Good. Bible says test all things. Hold fast. That which is true. Or do your own research. If you tested the flat earth, you'd debunk it, bro. If you tested the Bible, you'd debunk it. I did. I was a lifelong atheist until I tested it. Well, then you failed your test, buddy. I don't know what else to tell you. Fight against principalities of darkness. You guys are all lively and having fun. Let's carry on. To do free free Palestine said flat earth. There's one debate, the globe death. So that's a compliment. Thank you for that free free Palestine. Truth Seekers said all you have is math and models. This is a quotation. Sorry says all you have is math and models to you, Dustin, as opposed to what else? Scientific evidence and the scientific method, which is demonstrable, repeatable, and debunkable. Okay. Let's carry on, guys. I think that was short and sweet. Alex says thoughts on Alden's atmospheric theory. Yeah, the old thing is just made up. They're just trying to troll us. Oh, okay. There's no such thing as Alden's atmospheric theory. Do you guys? Yeah. Anybody else know anything? I don't know anything about that subject. I'll have to look it up. It's a troll comment. They just say, do you know about Alden's number or Alden's theorem? And it doesn't mean anything. They're just trying to see if you can get us to agree with it. Isn't that from, is that that thing from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? No, it's just Glash's fan base that does that. Damn, okay. I was going to say there is a thing from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy that is supposed to be in that same vein. Free Palestine says, a sun and moon do not rise nor set. They only appear from within the vanishing point and disappear into the vanishing point as they perform the analama. I don't know if I said that. I don't know. Okay, I probably put a little too much grossness on that word. Anyways, go ahead guys. Yeah, so absolutely nothing in perspective provides for the bottom up obstruction of the sun as it sets. So perspective cannot help you. Angular resolution cannot help you. There is no workable rescue device on flat earth that is capable of explaining the sunset. Flatsoy tried to do it last time. He failed. I can easily show that. Demonstrated. I demonstrated for him. He just says, nah-ah. That's what he does guys. Demonstrations are nah-ah. Okay, so because your demonstration had an object that was taller than the observer's height, it failed as a demonstration. Now if you can repeat that demonstration with obstructing the sun with an object that is shorter than the observer's height, then I will accept it as a demonstration. Only sharing now. Oh my goodness. We have another share. He's just sharing Legos, man. It's what you guys are talking about right here. I'm showing you the sunset setting. If you want me, I'll speed it up in fact. We go out to 4x. It's weird that we can demonstrate these things. I do declare this is the last screen share, y'all. Guys, I'm sorry. I came prepared. I got brought notes. What should I say? Damn, it stole me. But none of what you've shared has been relevant at all. This is a sunset. You're talking about sunsets, man. What are you talking about? I don't disagree with sunsets. Nice curve. I see a curve. Nice. Isn't that a curve? I see a rising curve. What are you talking about? It's obvious. Where do you see a curve now? I see a curve. I think no one can see me with my fingers because someone's screen share. It's a straight line right there. It's a screen. Sorry, Ozen. At what altitude are you supposed to see a curve on your globe? Sunsets on the screen share. Do you have fish-eye lens contacts? We can see it is 30,000 feet. We can see it. No. Do you have fish-eye lens contacts? Even at 220,000 feet, thanks to Felix Baumgart that we see no curve. This is not a flat earth debate. When mythbusters tried to debunk flat earth, they used a fish-eye lens, which was the same curve. This is not a flat earth debate. At altitude. It's the same curve at ground level. The curve at ground level. It is not a flat earth debate. They cheat. It is a flat earth debate. In fact, it is because nobody cares about moon landing anymore. You can see a forward curve at 200 feet. I proved that too. Ryan, you should go off on a different topic. Literally, perspective. It's the foundation of your civil science. It's all related. You just can't like it. That's why you were against gravity. You wanted me to not talk about gravity before. Bro, you guys are afraid of these things. You are moving down. I will have a debate with you on flat earth or gravity. The thing is, that is not this debate. You heard it, James. It is part of this debate. It's context. That's Ryan. All right. My name is Ryan, but it does say James on the Zoom. So you get a pass. It's fine. Okay, Ryan. My apologies. I'm new to you guys. By the way, thanks for hosting this. I appreciate everybody coming. No, it's all good. But yeah, no. Let's try to get the last couple of questions out here, guys. So thank you, everybody, in our live chat for coming and hanging out and enjoying the discussion. Definitely hit the like button. Share this out in those spaces. You like to have these discussions. But in the meantime, we are going to wrap up our last three questions. I'm only going to read the last three questions. So if you got any other super chats, just save them, everybody, because we are going to close out after these, because I do think our guests are ready to piece out. So Billy Philly says, no boot has ever been set on the moon. Why would we see the site? See, I put my parental filter on there. You must miss the debate. All right. What was the question part of that? No, but no boot has been set on the moon, I think is what he said. There was a second line, though. Yeah, but he was saying, if no boot has been set on the moon, then why can we see the site where it has? Oh, he said, we would see it is what they were saying. We would see it. You don't see it. Because it's too far away. The octa angular resolution is too small. Okay. We're all excited. NASA claims to see it. All right, we're banging these ones out, guys. True secret. The overall site, sort of. All right. Note how these same people are able to see trillions of miles away. Fine, you got to assert yourself, man. Assert myself. Yeah, I was going to say, I'll have to bring out that rock voice, you know. Every once in a while, the way I look at it, though, is the more chill I remain during debate as a host. When the day comes where somebody really irks me, everyone's going to be like, oh, you PO'd Ryan. You must have messed up. That's how I look at it. I hope that's how it'll go, when eventually I do eventually lose my mind. But anyways, True Seeker says, what specific evidence convinced you the Bible is true? You said you were an atheist. Were you ever a skeptic for Dustin? Can you re-ask that question? I zoned out of her second because I have satellite internet, so I missed it. That's all right. True Seeker asked, what specific evidence convinced you the Bible is true? You said you were an atheist. Were you ever a skeptic? So I was a lifelong devout anti-theist who debated pastors and people come to my door. I would debate them. I never lost those debates. I convinced many people to abandon their faith. I'm ashamed to say. But when I went down every other rabbit hole, when I told my audience, that Flat Earth stuff is stupid. It's a distraction. I'm focused on real issues like human trafficking and fake elections and fake medicines and such. People dying, real issues, not this fake Flat Earth stuff. I didn't care about it. When I looked into it to debunk it, I accepted it within six hours and then never since then, I knew there was a creator and I was no longer an atheist. And it took me very little time to figure out which creator had a book full of prophecies and miracles, which test 100% true. All right. Anybody else have any thoughts? Quick thoughts before we move to the last one. Well, I was never an atheist, but as a Bible-believing Christian most of my life, I was a global believer. And when you actually look into the word more deeply, you see it definitely doesn't teach a heliocentric model as it goes against God's character. So, nominal, coming in with the last question. Thank you so much, everybody, for your questions. Just really quick, really quick. I've looked through all this evidence too and it never was convincing to me. Maybe I'm just more of a skeptic. I don't know. This isn't going to be really quick, is it? No, let's try to move on. I'm done. Sorry. You're trying to open up another can of worms. You behave yourself, Mr. I am on to you. Nominal says, Mr. I need an hour to respond. That tries to open up a can of worms. You calm down. All right. It's fine. 85% of dark matter. This question from nominal. 85% of dark matter follows the scientific method. 95% of the time, it's true, scientific facts. 85% of dark matter follows the scientific method. 95% of the time. I don't think this is a serious question. I'm sorry. That's sarcasm, guys. It's funny, though. PhD phony did put in another question, so we'll ask that one. I did say we're going to cap it off, but if we get one more question that's serious, let's do it. Does it annoy you that Flat Earth has no answers? This is a Flat Earth question. What are you doing? But let's ask it anyways. Flat Earth has no answers. Let's take one minute, guys. What do you mean no answers? I have no questions. I think we've answered everything. Yeah. All right. I think we've answered everything at all. Let's ignore that then, since we have Wade Remington coming in. I'm going to remind all of you, stop it with the super chats, but I did want one that was one last one of substance before we close out for the night and do exit statements. Wade Remington, thank you so much. Why would Buzz Aldrin say on camera that we never went? You first person. Yeah, he was pissed off because some guy kept putting a camera right in front of his face and he was a conspiracy theorist that he didn't want to deal with. So he gave him a sarcastic answer. I mean, he also, he said it shouldn't have go. He said it should never actually set it either. And then he said, what was it? Mic drop or something like that? No, he said circuit breaker after he said it. Question? I think he said this many times. He said this on the stage. He said it's a little go. He said it to different people. All right. Question. And now like what do you see now? This is for Ozean and Grayson. So Ozean, you had a thought there and we'll try to let you get that out there before we hand it back over to you. No, he didn't specifically say that, but that's fine. Yeah, I'd like to just say the final thought here because Buzz Aldrin has gone on record numerous times saying that it does happen and you guys call him a liar. But then if he makes a joke and says sarcastically that we didn't, then all of a sudden you guys, oh, look, now he's telling the truth. He was lying all those other times, but now that he's agreeing with me sarcastically, that must be the truth. Ha ha. It's confirmation bias. If he were a murderer, that would get him arrested in prison. Yeah, no duh. Why? Because he just basically contradicted his own testimony and he violated something. That's not testimony. What he's done is worse than murder. You understand what testimony is? It's his public statements. No, that's not testimony. That is his testimony. Sarcasm is not testimony, dude. You're not trying to make a truth claim. You're the one saying it's sarcasm. He said circuit breaker, cliff, you know, mic drop type statement. You're the one saying it's sarcasm. You're the one saying it's sarcastic at all. You're the one saying it's testimony when it was in a statement. A public statement numerous times made is testimony. Yeah, no. I've got a question though. How are you able to divine if it's, he's thought if it's sarcastic or not? Oh, gee, flatsoid. How oh, how do we know that somebody's being sarcastic when they talk to you? He didn't talk that way, by the way. No, he didn't. There was no sarcasm in his voice. All right. He's on his phone. He's on his phone. Conan O'Brien, a comedy show. That's not testimony, dude. All right. What we're going to do. If he's talking to a little girl, is he being sarcastic to a little girl? I have to see the specific quote because you guys take this shit out of context all the time. But I see I have to leave. Yeah. I think what we should do is we'll do a one minute closings for each individual. So we usually keep it to one side of the panel for the closing. But I feel like let's bounce it this evening because that would be fun. So flatsoid, do you mind going first where you went first in the intro? Thank you so much, buddy. Awesome. One minute for you. Thanks. Yeah. Just by the way, I just saw the sunrise now because I woke up at 2 AM for this debate. So thanks, guys, for the was fun. But note this whole debate. They have not been able to do anything to demonstrate gas purge without containment. All they did was place things in Narnia without actually demonstrating it first to exist and say, no, you don't understand when we ask them specific questions. Now, it's also we have practically the whole night explained the different ventures of why it's fake, even based on why they're liars. And if you're honest about yourself, you look at this and see, yeah, maybe the moon landings are fake. All right. So we'll hand it over to you, Grayson. Oh, one minute on the floor and it's all yours. OK, yeah. So not only did we do all of the flatsoids that we didn't do, but they provided no evidence. We provided, at least in my intro, and I tried to get them to address it throughout, independent third party measurements from both amateurs and scientists. So like, again, the lunar retroreflector shut down this whole thing. They had no response to it. They just said, no, we showed lots of examples of where gravity acts as the containment for gas pressure. There's over 5000 exoplanets. Most of them have atmospheres that are readily observable with spectroscopy. So again, he's totally full of it. He doesn't even understand that the second law only applies to isolated systems. This is basic 101 level stuff, which he would know if he had ever taken a class in anything that he talks about. And just so you know, the links are not down below for our channels. So go ahead and Google or search on YouTube based theory if you want to check out any of my other debates on my channel. All right. Thank you so much. And yeah, feel free to let everybody know where you're hanging out in your closing statement. Dustin, one minute on the floor. Hey, sure. I'm Dustin Nemos, archivist at theserapeum.com and host of The Silent War at NemosNewsNetwork.com. And there's now clear evidence of NASA using numerous methods to mislead the public about astronauts being on the ISS and other space missions. Air bubbles, wires, harnesses, green screens, virtual reality strings, gravity, grabbing objects that are not even there, et cetera, including near drowning incidents, numerous spaces to satanic secret society deception filmed in a Hollywood basement. The elite are ruled by a cult that worships the demigod Nephilim Anunnaki lineage of the fallen angels of Genesis 6, and they have created entire branches of false science around the Copernican Revolution, the now thoroughly debunked theory that the world moves around the sun, which is why we are really here. In order to convince us the world is a globular rock cannonball corkscrewing amidst infinite void with other infinite globular rocks shotgun blasting behind it. A rock that is billions of years old, et cetera. You guys can see the rest at theserapam.com. All right, Ozie, and last statement for you. Closing one minute. I just want to point out really quick in his closing there, he made three claims that weren't brought up during the debate that could have been refuted then, but I don't have time to refute them now about bubbles and all that type of stuff. Anyway, so we provided a wealth of evidence. We explained there was historical record to deny that we went to the moon you'd have to incredulity require is astronomical. Their only explanation for why we didn't go to the moon is a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics. And Seaton did it. He created this grand, great conspiracy to hide God. That's their argument. Or you can accept the historical record, the physics, the history, the documentation, and the testimony of our veterans that went to the moon. And that's it. Oh, yeah, rather than after show it matters now, please come watch it. All right. Yeah, I'll be hanging out over there. There will be a link in that description as well if anybody wants to come up on the panel and talk about the discussion. But in the meantime, thanks everybody for coming out to modern day debate. We appreciate all of our speakers here on the panel for coming out and having our discussions. So lots of love in the live chat. We will be back tomorrow for Flat Earth Debates. It's going to be Mercedes and Kyle or Reed versus Lee. Sorry, Kyle Adams versus Mark Reed and Leo Philius. So I hate your notification for that. And join us over on matters now. We'll be having a little after show and discussion. So cheers, everybody. And I'll put on my promo that I created there with my drummer where I play a nice little guitar solo. Nobody seems to mind that too much versus me screaming in your ear. Have a good night, everybody. Cheers, cheers.