Alright, tonight we're going to be debating. Welcome to modern day debate everybody. We're going to be debating the moon landing. What's up to hoax? And to get us started we have Big Country. The floor is yours. You have 10 minutes on the floor. Awesome, man. Thanks so much, Ryan. Yeah, so let's get it right into it. Ladies and gentlemen, hooligans and hooliganettes, fellow interlocutor who's getting water. I am Big Country, host of Whiskey Beer and Conspiracy Podcast. Shameless plug there. We're all over the place. You can find us. No big deal there. So we are here to debate the authenticity of the moon landing. While history books and popular narratives celebrate the Apollo missions as a triumph of human exploration, closer examination of the so-called evidence reveals lingering doubts, inconsistencies, and a flat-out answer of no, we did not land on the moon. Then or now, and it didn't happen. All claimed evidence that you will hear tonight to solidify the belief that we landed on the moon will be unverifiable. We'll discuss a lot of different topics and a lot of different anomalies that have led us to believe the path of doubting the moon landing. Now the nail in the coffin, which I don't really want to start here since T jumps out of the room. I'll mention it, but people came for content of the debate, so I don't want to just end it in 10 minutes by discussing, right, can't have gas pressure without a vacuum, without a physical container. So maybe that's another topic for another day. But first and foremost with the moon we have no idea what the moon is, which would mean that we have no idea if it is in fact terra firma. We didn't know then, we don't know now, which in turn would mean that we don't know the distance to the moon, since the distance has never been measured. So how in 1969 did we have the information required to accomplish such a feat, such as the distance, or even knowing if it is terra firma? It's kind of easy because we didn't. Seemingly on the flat earth, debate side of things, through Whitsitt, Nathan, a couple other people, I'll throw mine down there. We've successfully falsified the presupposed R value which you would need for orbital mechanic aspects to reaching the moon in the first place. Now how do we get to the moon? Well rockets, right? Well what about the tyranny of the rocket equation? The rocket equation is a fundamental principle in aeronautics, which dictates the amount of propellant required to reach a destination increased exponentially with the distance and velocity desired. This poses significant challenges for space travel, especially for missions to distance celestial bodies like the moon or beyond. The immense amount of fuel required for logistical complexities inherent in the rocket equation cast down on the feasibility of manned missions to the moon using the technology available, especially during the Apollo era. Now the long, so long of the short of it is the tyranny of the rocket equation says that the longer the distance, the more the fuel, which means that the rocket is now heavier, which equates to more fuel to lift the heavier rocket up. And we basically just kind of leave ourselves in a starting point of needing more fuel, it's too heavy so we need more fuel. So how do they overcome this in 1969 if it is in fact still in contention today? Well what about the infamous retro reflectors that were allegedly placed on the moon during the Apollo missions to facilitate laser ranging experiments? Well however, we know that as early as 1962 we bounced lasers off the moon before any claimed retro reflectors were placed there. Sorry, I lost my place here. Yeah, okay, sorry. So thus we can conclude that since lasers could be bounced off the moon prior to any claim that a retro reflector was placed there is sufficient enough evidence to falsify this claim. Of course, as stated above, we've not measured the one-way speed of light so they couldn't know the distance. Several physicists have pointed out that while relativity assumes the vacuum speed of light is the universal constant, it also shows that because the speed can never be measured, specifically relativity forbid you from measuring the time it takes light to travel from point A to point B. We can thank Ruan Zoukou for his paper in 2015, Reconsidering Relativity. What if we look at the so-called photo and video evidence of the moon landing, we see issues right off the bat, the lack of the blast crater from the lander itself. If the lunar module indeed landed on the moon's surface with the force required to breach its gravitational pull, why is there no discernible evidence of such impact? How about the lack of stars absent in the background from videos and photographs? Yet there are also inconsistencies in the testimony of multiple astronauts. Some say yes, we can see stars while we're up there on the moon out in outer space while others say that we cannot. Despite the absence of the supposed atmospheric interference on the moon, this inconsistency raises questions about the accuracy of their observations and the credibility of their testimonies. Now if the stars were indeed visible in the vacuum of space as they're claimed to be, as they should be, why did some astronauts claim otherwise? So from my opponent tonight, which astronaut will you be willing to call a liar and why? How about the lack of matching footprints on the surface that when the supposed astronauts boots that walked on the moon, their footprint did not match that which was in the museum? We can also confront the issue of radiation exposure beyond Earth's protective atmosphere. Studies of Van Allen radiation belt suggest that passage through these intense radiation zones would have posed insurmountable risks to the health and safety of the astronauts. How then do we reconcile the apparent absence of radiation sickness or long-term health effects among Apollo astronauts? Without any protection, astronauts are more likely to have both acute and chronic health problems such as cataracts and heart diseases. Additionally, they may suffer from short-term radiation illness and risks of cancer developed in long term. This course, based on a person's age, genre, and this is from Smithsonian Magazine. Well, we should be able to analyze the data from the telemetry to understand how it was done in 1969.  Damn it. Well, perhaps we can examine the original moon landing footage. There must be reels of film that we could examine that would put this debate to bed, right? Oh, nope. Sorry, they recorded over that too. Lost it, maybe on the next one. Furthermore, the technological limitations of the 1960s raised legitimate concerns about the feasibility of safely transporting humans to the moon and back with computing power less than that of a modern-day smartphone. But I'll do you one better. The computer on the lunar lander had a 2048 word of erasable magnetic core memory and 36,864 words of read-only core rope memory. So let's do some conversions. If we took 3,072 bytes of RAM to 8 kilobytes of RAM, we first have to understand the conversion. So 1 kilobyte is a 1,024 bytes. So 8 kilobytes of RAM is 8 times 1,024 bytes, which is 8,192 bytes. Now, if we compare that, 372 bytes is less than 8,192 bytes, almost two times less. So why did I convert it to 8 kilobytes of RAM? Well, 8 kilobytes of built-in working RAM up to 16 8 kilobytes switchable working RAM pages for a maximum of 128 kilobytes of external RAM is what was available to the Nintendo Game Boy in 1989, 20 years later. So what you have to tell me then is that the lunar lander had less than half of the RAM capabilities of the gray brick in 1989, but we can't figure out how to do it today. Last but not least, of course, we had the moon rocks. They brought back the moon rocks. They were like, oh, one minute, got you. They brought back the moon rocks. So it must have gone actually not the moon rocks. They were presented to the prime minister of the Netherlands. I turned out to be petrified wood. There's articles on that. In conclusion, as we embark on this debate, let us keep an open mind and approach the evidence with a spirit of skepticism tempered by reason and avoid ad hominems and logical fallacies. Request for the truth demands nothing less and my favorite part of this debate with my interlocutor is that he cannot deny any of the videos in which I'm going to show tonight. So thank you so much. All right. Well, thank you as well. Big country for being here. Welcome to modern day debate. We welcome new speakers here and also welcome you in the live chat. Thank you for being here and joining us for our discussion. Just want to welcome you all here. We're a neutral platform hosting debates on science, politics, religion. We hope that you like it enough to hit the like button and share it out in those spaces you like having these discussions. We do have a live event that's coming up. We're going to talk about that after T-Jump's opening statement. So T-Jump, you have 10 minutes on the floor. All right. So I listened to some of what the opponent said. The first thing he said is we've reflected lasers off of, I don't know, that's the second thing, that we've reflected lasers off the moon. Therefore, the reflectors are fake. I don't know how little research is done on this, but yeah, we can reflect lasers off the moon. That's pretty easy. It's a big rock. The problem is the reflectors bounce the lasers back in the direction they are sent from. So any direction you shoot a laser at the reflector, it will then take that laser and bounce it directly back in the direction you reflected it from. Reflecting laser off the moon doesn't do that. It doesn't work that. It's a big ball. It's made of rock. It doesn't reflect things back directly in the direction that you shoot something at it. Not how it works, but it does for these reflectors. And the only things that do this are man-made. Congratulations, there isn't some special nature mirror that automatically reflects things back in the way they came. Only man-made objects do this. So there necessarily are man-made objects on the moon. Problem solved. He said, for longer distance, you need more fuel. That is wrong. That is literally not the case. The objects that have the greatest distance have no fuel left. They don't have any fuel. They're just floating because objects in motion remain in motion. Newton's very first law. Thank you, Newton, to bunking furfs from thousands of years ago. Amazing. So no, you don't actually need more fuel to travel longer distances. You need more fuel to change directions at longer distances. So that one was debunked. I don't remember the other thing you said. Yes, there are some moon rocks that have been proved to be petrified wood. Is this evidence that all of them are? No.  How can we tell the difference between petrified wood and a moon rock? There are, for what they're called, there's a big word for it, but it's hydrogen compounds or hydrogen and oxygen compounds are found on earth rocks. All of them, they are not found on moon rocks, any of them, because there wasn't any at their formation. They're, you know, therefore you know which ones are moon rocks and which ones are real rocks. Earth rocks. Because all earth rocks have this water stuff, water-based compounds in it, and moon rocks don't. So we can tell which ones are which. Problem solved. All of the garbage he said about the moon landing has been debunked a billion times. There's literally just no point in going over. Just watch. What was it? The show with Adam or whatever, where they did this. It's Adam Conover. He debunked this. And then the guy with the weird hat and the orange-haired guy, the comedians who did myth, mythbusters. They debunked it. So all of those fairfire ideas have been debunked in there. They should just die and move on, get a new hobby. See what else? We can balance ham radio waves all over the moon. Like you can send radio waves, travel at the speed of light. They can hit the moon and they'll come back and you can receive them. So we know how far away the moon is, how big the moon is, where the moon is. And there's nothing around the moon. Like because if there was something else there, the other things would also bounce the radio waves back because radio waves are just massive things that just go in all the directions. And so if it hit anything else other than the moon in the general vicinity, like a big dome of some kind, a Flurftome, we're going to call it the Flurftome, it would bounce the radio waves back and we'd receive a signal. If the radio waves went through it and hit something behind it, like if there was nothing there, and then only came back from that one point, we know it's an object. That's how radar works. It's just radar. And we know it's radar because it's the exact same radar we use with submarines. What radio waves are, radar or radio. So we can tell for sure that the moon is there, the correct distance it is. It's solid. It's a rock. We have samples of the rocks. We can prove that the samples do come from the moon because they don't have any of the hydrocarbons that are in earth rocks because there wasn't any at the formation of the moon. Congratulations. We can prove there are man-made objects on the moon because the reflectors reflect things back directly in any direction that you point the laser at it, which the moon did not do before. I don't remember the rest of the junk. You don't need more fuel to go more distance. That's just simply false. No, no objects in motion remain in motion. I don't conclude there. All right. Thank you. And everybody, we are going to kick it into a, sorry, open discussion. And I do want to remind everybody we do Q&A at the end. So if you put in a super chat, we'll make sure to read those questions to our speakers. If you're listening in on podcasts where all of our debates get uploaded within 24 hours and you want to ask a question to one of our speakers, make sure you are hanging out and you like and subscribe to the Modern Day Debate YouTube channel. Also want to let you guys know about some exciting upcoming news, which is going to be a live event in Texas. So James is going to be helping out with Minds Fast and the links are going to be in the description so you can see that next to me here. And I can pin that in the chat as well. So let's go into an open discussion and thank you everybody for being here. Cool. Sorry, I was on mute there. So let me just clarify real quick to jump what I said was that as early as 1962, we were able to reflect lasers off of them prior to any retroflector claimed of being put there. I didn't say that we bounce things off of retroflectors, therefore they don't exist. What does that have to do with what I said? You said that I had said that we could bounce lasers off retroflectors, therefore they're not real. And you did not say that? You were really saying what was the argument you were making there? No. So what I said was as early as 1962, we were able to bounce lasers off the moon prior to any retroflectors being said to have been put there. Therefore, what was the implication of that? Therefore, it is not evidence to suggest that indeed we have retroflectors on the moon. Right. And so how I responded was I said retroflectors are objects that when you bounce a laser on it, it comes directly back in whatever direction you sent the laser from. So if you sent the laser from the right, the laser will then go inside the retroflector, bounce around and go directly back towards wherever you sent it from. That didn't happen in any of the examples you listed before. That's the difference. I got you. So the retroflector, you're saying that we shoot a laser at a supposed retroflector and then the laser comes right back? Directly back, yes. That's what the retroflector is. What they do is any direction that you hit it from a laser, it will cause it to bounce directly back in the direction that it came from. So a laser comes back, not data on a computer? Yes. So I'm sorry. So yes, it's a laser that comes back? Yes. The actual laser hits the retroflector and the laser comes back. Okay. I'm unaware. I've only seen that retroflectors bring back data on a computer. No, it sends an actual beam of actual energized particles, which can hurt you if you can hit by them, physical particles. Yeah, I've personally never seen this. I don't know if maybe you have an example where you could pull up or so. Well, if you just look at the blueprints of the retroflectors, what they are is they're a series of mirrors that are built into a big dome, like an internal dome, opposite dome, I don't know, concave, convex, whatever. And so the way it works is you shoot a laser inside and any direction you shoot the laser will come directly back. And you can just build a model and show it does this, have the blueprints of exactly what the retroflectors are to know how they work. So you can just build them and take a laser pin and it'll do the same thing. But you wouldn't suggest that blueprints of something means it does exist and it is where they say it is? Well, no, the blueprints are just to show how it works because you asked how retroflectors work. So we can show how they work by here's the blueprint. So you can build this thing and say, if this is the thing that's on the moon, then any time you point a laser at it, it will bounce it directly back in the direction you pointed the laser at it. And then you can say, okay, so if that's on the moon, we use powerful laser on any of the big laser machines, it'll do the same thing. And that's exactly what we see. And that's been tested and done by hundreds of different labs around the world, hundreds of different colleges, hundreds of different individuals who rent those things. Yeah. Listen, I hear what you're saying. I've just never seen the evidence of this be actually being done. Now, they say that they do that. That's fine. But I've heard arguments that you've made in the past on this specific debate that, in fact, you go to an observatory and you can rent it for the night and they give you the machine that shoots the laser but sends it back to your computer with data on it. Is that not the case? You can just build your own if you want. That's fine. So then I'm not actually receiving a laser directly back to me. I'm shooting a laser at a specific set of coordinates and then data is popping up on my computer saying, yep, that's the reflector. No, it's a laser.  So it's a laser and you can build your own computer to read the laser if you want and then it won't be a computer screen. It's an actual laser. If you have a sense of enough eyes, you'll see the laser. I don't know if I doubt you do, but you can. If you have a little sheet, there are certain retro reactive sheets or something. Forget what they're called. You put the laser in front of it and it'll leave little dots on the sheet because when the laser hits it, it causes a reaction to the paper that causes little dots. You can use whatever medium you want to read the laser. Sure. I mean, I would love to actually see this, right? I'm not familiar with that at all. You can do it. You can just go to the lab like, hey, I'm a fluff. Could you show me how this works and I'll show you. All right. Why do you guys say blurbs? I don't get it. It's a funny sounding word. It's like potato. It might be good to move on from this one. I think we've discussed the lasers. You remind me of an old 2000s meme. I'm a fire in my laser if anybody knows what that's from. So let's carry on and talk about the technology which you brought up there, big country. Technology. I think the second thing was you need more fuel to go longer distance or something. Yeah, the tyranny of the rocket equation. Yeah. So it's simply false. You don't need more fuel to go longer distances as long as you get outside of the pull of gravity. You can go as far as you want and you'll never stop with zero fuel. Okay. So it says here the tyranny part of the term emphasize the significant challenges posed by this equation. To increase a rocket's payload capacity or velocity, engineers often need to design a larger and more powerful rockets, which in turn require even more fuel. This creates a cycle of escalating costs, technical complexity, and diminishing returns. Overcoming the constraints imposed by the rocket equation is one of the central challenges in the space exploration and rocket engineering. So what part of that? Do you know what a payload is? What is it? It's the device that they're traveling with. Yeah, just the amount of weight it can lift off the ground. And so obviously if you're stuck to a big planet and you want to carry more weight, you need more fuel to get off the ground. But what it didn't say there was distance. It didn't mention distance once. So you can take any object of any weight and it can travel infinitely far as long as you get it moving, because objects in motion remain in motion. And so maybe you just misspoke and you add a distance there accidentally. But yeah, it definitely takes more fuel to get things off the ground that are heavier on the read, but it doesn't take more fuel to travel longer. That is not the trick, not the case. Sorry, I went down the wrong deep. But that's presupposed, right? You're talking about gravity pulling you in with other planets and stuff, right? That's what you're talking about. If I'm traveling in a distance in space, right, and I happen to skirt by a planet, right? The force of said supposed gravity could change my trajectory. But that's all presupposed. I'm not sure what you mean. So the first law of physics, objects in motion remain in motion. It's just that if you're without another force, like gravity or something, you're just going to keep going. It's just not the case that you need more fuel to travel further. And the thing is a lot called the Cassini. The Cassini rockets or Cassini satellites that they send off in both directions, they're just going and going. They've gone farther than any other human built thing in the solar system, and they have no fuel. They have zero fuel. They just don't have anything to propel them. They're just going. In the sky vacuum. Yep. Okay. Okay. That's fine. That's fine. I mean, I don't know why it's funny. It's pretty obvious like air bottom dense, air top, not dense. Keep going. Less dense, less dense, no air. No container. No container. You don't need a container. Can you prove that? Yes. With a test? Yep. In carbon dioxide. So like you take a box, take some like colored gas or the colored gas in the box. If it's heavier, then say like helium or something will just fall to the bottom and then you'll have a little gas with gas pressure and then you'll have nothing above it with the zero pressure. It'll just sit there forever. Well, I mean, to break it or something. So the gas will never leave that open container. Because it's pulled down by gravity. So because there's heavy gases and light gases, if you have a heavy gas, if you pour any color it and you pour it into a container in a complete vacuum, it'll just stay in the container because it's a heavy gas. It'll just float to the bottom and stick there. And there'll be zero of the gas that flows up because it's heavy. And you said, sorry, say that one more time, if you put it in a what? Like a container without a top. So just like four or like a glass fish bowl with no top. So you put a fish bowl with no top. It was colored. You can actually see it pooling at the bottom. It won't go up. So there's a vacuum because there's no top, but you can see it. Like if you got rid of the container, it would just go to the bottom of the room and then you wouldn't be able to see it because it would just be so big.  So but it's in a container, right? Is what you're telling me? No, because there's no top, which means there's a direct connection to a vacuum. So that gas would stay indefinitely in said open container is what you're telling me. Yeah, because of gravity is just going to sit there at the bottom. It's never going to expand. It's never going to go up. It's just going to stay in the container the entire time forever until you get rid of the vacuum. Yeah, I think that's not even kind of true. It's been proven. We literally have done this in many of the different things. Yes. OK, so so you've pressurized gas. What? So we've just taken gas like heavy gases like like sulphur hexafluoride or sure. And we just did a gas, but whatever. Yeah, doesn't make a difference.  And it'll just fall to the bottom of you want a fishbowl or something so that it goes stays on. You can see it because if you just do it in the room, you'll never going to see it. They put a fishbowl there with no top. So there's a direct connection to the vacuum and you just pour it in very slowly. It'll just fall to the bottom of the fishbowl and stay there. It will not continue to expand like it had. There's a maximum rate of expansion from the electrons and the protons and the neutrons and that's how big it's going to get and it's going to get no bigger. And because of its weight, it's going to fall to the bottom.  They're going to be really expanded, but they're going to be stuck on the bottom and they're never going to move because they're heavy. And this is in a vacuum. This is in a vacuum chamber, right? How do we achieve a vacuum chamber on earth? Just to remind our audience how this interacts with the argument of whether the moon landing is a hoax or not, or our gas and our vacuum. So carry on, gents, just if you can remind our audience how this ties in. I mean, we can change. I did say earlier that this was like not necessarily something I wanted to get into. I mentioned that, but we wouldn't.  We can move on. I mean, I feel like we're just going to keep going in circles. If there's no space, then clearly the moon landing was fake, like, duh. That was kind of an important part. That would tie it in, yeah. But yeah, so how do we create a vacuum chamber on earth? Yes, we create a big container and we pop out all the air. Did you say that slower or? Yes, so we have a container to keep the air out.  Right. And so then we have gas in this vacuum. This gas doesn't expand everywhere in the vacuum. It stays in a very small part of the bottom, right? Right, but it fills the available volume equal to its buoyancy level. No. So if I pour gas in, it doesn't just stay in a pocket. It goes to the edges of the available volume that would equal its equilibrium. No, it goes to the bottom. It just stays in a pocket. In the bottom. It just goes to the bottom. It'll never go up. Never goes up. Never expands. It doesn't expand to the buoyancy level. It just goes to the bottom and sits there. It fills the available volume on the bottom of the container. It fills the available volume equal to its equilibrium. Sure. Because gas is omnidirectional. No, that's the part that you're getting wrong. It's not omnidirectional. It only goes down. Left and right. Sure, that's not omnidirectional. Straight and forward. That's still two. That's a 2D plane. You're missing the up and down. X, Y, Z, X's.  It'll never go up. It'll just sit at the bottom. Ever. Stay there. It'll never go up. Even though there's less pressure above it. So there's less pressure above it. Zero pressure above it. It'll never go up. It'll just sit at the bottom because of gravity. It'll just stay there. Which means you have like, at the very bottom, there's going to be the most pressure. And above that, there's going to be a little less pressure. And above that, there's going to be a little less pressure. To provide that, a little less. And then there's going to be down. But there's no gas. Just like the atmosphere. Yeah, because see, I've, again, I've never seen this test. I would love to see it. Right. I would love to see that. Maybe I will. Maybe I could film it and come back and talk about it. But if we can, real quick, we'll get back to what you had said there. So we get a container. We evac all of the air to create a vacuum. What's the closest one on Earth that we have to space 17 to the negative 4 to 4? 10 to the negative 17 to 4, maybe? I'm not sure what it is. It's not. It's significantly more than that.  The big ones, yeah, the big ones are not that, not that powerful. But the tiny, there's the smaller ones that are like this big, that gets you to pretty much as an absolute vacuum. Okay. So I guess my question then is, in order to build a gas vacuum chamber, excuse me, a vacuum chamber here on Earth, we have to put it in a room. Sealed. There we go. Yup. Evac the air. Yup. Now, what's claimed to be above us past the carbon line is space vacuum. Yup. No physical container. Right. So I think you're really confused here because you think that if there's no, if you're required to build a container to keep the air out, that means that proves that vacuums require a container or something. It's very, very bad logic. So to prove you wrong, it's totally fine to put a vacuum in a container to prove you wrong. All I need to do to prove you wrong is to show that gases will fall to the bottom in a vacuum. They won't equally float to all corners of the vacuum container. All they will do is fall to the bottom because if that happens, then it doesn't matter if we're in a container or not. Because if we're not a container, the gas will fall to the bottom. If we are in a container, the gas will fall to the bottom. So either way, the gas will fall to the bottom. And the vacuum of space is possible now. Vacuum of space has been proven because all the gas falls to the bottom. That means there's this little bit of gas here, gas, gas, no gas. And there's no container between those two things. There's no container creating the vacuum. There's just gas that's falling to the bottom. Although. So sorry, go ahead. I want to jump in. So it doesn't make a difference if we're in a bigger container or not. Space is still real because space, the lack of any atmospheric pressure, is going to be there simply by the changes in the density of the gas. And it doesn't make a difference if we're in a vacuum or not. And that's the topic we're talking about is space real. That would prove space was real. Yes. Even though, but it doesn't though, not the way that it's described. I'm not saying that things that are up in the sky are a projection or not really there. I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that it's a physical impossibility for a vacuum to exist next to a pressurized system without all of the air escaping into said volume.  OK, so that's the part I was addressing here. So let's say we have a container with a vacuum in it. And we have another container, just a little glass bowl of heavy gas. And we put the glass bowl in the middle of the vacuum. Now, if you were right, the gas in the glass bowl would escape. It would leave the glass bowl. It would go out, it would fly everywhere, go all corners of the vacuum chamber. And if it doesn't, if it just sits in the bowl because of gravity, that proves your statement wrong because the gas is in escaping. There is a pressurized gas system, the bowl that has an open top that is directly connected to a vacuum directly above it. And the gas isn't escaping into the vacuum. It's just sitting in the bowl. Now, if that happens, that proves your previous statement completely wrong, doesn't it? No, no. Because the open container is still in the vacuum. Yes. So there's an open container. Are you suggesting that Earth is a vacuum? No. Because that would be your example. You know, so there's a bowl with some gas in it, like Earth has gas around it. And so there's some pressurized gas that's around Earth. And there's some pressurized gas in the bowl. So the pressurized by the weight of the gas. And it's directly connected to a vacuum. There is a vacuum directly above it. And the gas is not escaping into the vacuum. It's just sitting there in the bowl because of gravity. And so if we have an object like the world that pulls gas towards it, even though it's correct, directly connected to a vacuum, the gas isn't going to escape because the gas is like it's trapped in the bowl because of gravity. It's being pulled towards the thing with the gravity, in which case it can be directly connected to a vacuum and not escape. Just like there's a lot of gas in the bowl, which creates a pressurized gas system that isn't escaping into the vacuum, even though there's a vacuum directly above it. Is that your final point? I don't want to... Sure. Yeah, I'm still not seeing how this proves anything that what is claimed in your model. And furthermore, we're demonstrating here that your independent variable in that test is gravity. So how are you manipulating gravity to ensure that it's actually the gravity is pulling gas to the bottom? The independent variable is the gas. No, that's not. It's the gas. So we're measuring there. You said gas is staying down because of gravity. Right. We're not testing gravity. We're testing the effects of what's the gas is doing. So we don't really care what's causing it to go down. It doesn't make a difference. It's irrelevant. We don't care. That's the whole idea of science. No. It's the cause and effect correlation. You don't need independent variables to do all kinds of experiments. That's just false. That's just a ninth grade level understanding of science. That's a very basic definition, not required for most scientific tests. But different topic. Go back to this topic. We don't care about gravity. We don't care. We just pretend there's no gravity. We don't care. The only thing we're trying to prove here is can you have pressurized gas next to a vacuum and can the pressurized gas stay pressurized and not go into the vacuum? That's all we want. Is that possible? So if we have a bowl and there's heavy gas in it, it's pressurized gas. The weight of the gas is pushing the gas down. We don't care if it's done by gravity. It doesn't make a difference. We have a bowl with pressurized gas. We put it into a vacuum, which means right above the pressurized gas, it's exposed to a vacuum, direct exposure to a vacuum, and it's not going anywhere. Just staying in the bowl. There's a pressurized gas right next to a vacuum, not expanding. So that disproves your point that if a pressurized gas cannot exist next to a vacuum, because it literally is doing that and not moving. I'd love to see this. I've never seen this. And as a matter of fact, I think that this would violate a couple of natural laws. It does not. I mean, this has literally been done in multiple types. Do you have an example you could pull up? No, but if you want to talk to the people who actually keep these on file, like, what's his name, Fight the Flatter, Creation Cats, they have these examples they can pull up for you. They haven't saved. I don't know if I haven't saved. My topic is does God exist, but they have all the data if you want it. This is a very common experiment. It's pretty basic. It's funny that it's so common because when we ask, astrophysicist's question, they say, yeah, we don't know how that works exactly. I've never heard like I've talked to physicists that, yeah, we know exactly how that works. It's the gravity, strong electromagnetic force and the weak force. There you go. Problem solved. That's how it works. I'm not sure which part, which part do you want to explain how it works? I can explain every part of that. Well, I mean, listen, we could we could sit here and continually talk about it. I feel like we're going in circles. I don't know if you want to change topics. I mean, just keep it moving. Well, I mean, sure, I mean, I'm not going in a circle. It's like we're talking to a brick wall, but I've gone in a straight line the entire time. I think it might be a good idea to explore another idea. So if you want to kick us off big country and give us another example that you might have brought up in your intro or even something inside of it, because you said you had other things as well. Yeah, sure. So what would be your explanation then, T-Jump, for certain astronauts saying, yeah, absolutely, you can see stars when you're up there. And then others astronauts saying that you cannot see stars up there. I wouldn't assess them when he's garbage. So one of them is lying. No, I think it's probably most likely it's contextualized to the statement, like, did you see stars? And many of the astronauts could have said no, because of the time when they worked or whatever, could have been during the day when the sun was exposed. So they wouldn't have been able to see stars. And if you ask other ones, did you see stars? And they worked during the night or whenever the sun wasn't out, they could have seen stars. So that would have been one explanation, but I really don't care about their testimony. Testimony isn't evidence. Well, no, no, no, no, testimony is definitely not evidence, but the inconsistency of said testimonies of the people who have claimed to have been there is pretty damning evidence when they don't line up. No, not at all. Actually, if we know anything about testimony, there's an experiment done where we had 20 people. Are these one of those experiments that somebody else has? This is an experiment that's common. Again, lots of people do it. I go to colleges. We do it. So yes, I can do it right now. It's done it a million times where there were 20 people put up to watch something go on. They didn't. They weren't told what car crash happened right in front of them. They were all separated, went to different rooms and asked what they saw. And they are all of their testimonies differed because that's just how the brain works. This is not evidence of anything. I wouldn't just testimonies diverge a lot. Very well known in law. This is not surprising at all. So now with the images that come back of said moon landing, right, lack of stars absent in the background from videos and photographs, what would be the explanation there? Probably because there wasn't enough light to expose the film to cause the stars to show up. Like literally, if you just take your phone and take a picture of the stars and you don't set it to a high exposure, you won't see no stars. But if you set it to a high exposure, you'll see the stars. So if the camera was set to a low exposure, it wouldn't see the stars. Very basic. Absolutely nothing challenging about that. Okay. Do you have, Ryan, can I get screen share first thing? Yeah, sure thing. Just let me know when you're ready. I will remind everybody once again, if you haven't hit the like button, we are going to once again, I'll say it again, while you get your screen share up, we're going to be doing our Q&A here. We still got a little over an hour, I'd say, of conversation. And we'll head in there. So whenever you're ready there, big country. Oh, yeah, I'm ready. Oh, did you enable it? Okay. Yeah, it's ready when you are. Just a screen share on Zoom. Cool. Oh, there we go. Okay. There we are. Is that working? We're up and running. Okay, cool. I didn't know if you could see the whole thing or not. So teach up. I'm sure you've seen this. This is India. I just a few months ago landing on the South Pole. Nope. Okay. So based on your belief in the moon landing, right? Let me hear, let's full screen it. Let's go back a little bit. This is a live video that they played as the lander was landing. So I guess my question here to jump is, do you believe that's a real video? No, it doesn't look like it. Okay. And the stars in the background? Well, it looks like it's computer generated. Like there's no shadows on the machine at all. It looks like computer generated stuff. I agree. I listen, I 100% agree with you. We're finding common ground here. So why would India show this video live and say that it's them landing on the moon? And NASA confirmed it. Why would they do that? They do artificial representations of the thing that they're doing because they can't show the actual thing they're doing. Video, my guy. Right. So I do live videos every day and they're just reruns of other things that I've done because I like it's just to represent the stuff that you're doing. Like it doesn't mean that it's literally the actual video. It's not how it works. Gotcha.  Got it. This one here was from when we launched back from the moon ignition. Was that like sparklers that came off of that? I have no idea. Probably pieces of metal from the explosion that launched it forward. Wow. No star. So that's interesting because India showed stars in their live fake video. Do you know the delay that they said that the camera was on? You can stop screen show there, Ryan. No, I don't care. I think they said it was three seconds. Did that look like a three second delay? Because that was perfectly centered to frame when it took off. What? The delay wouldn't have made a difference. So the camera that's right next to the thing that you showed wouldn't have had a delay. It would have just literally been showing the actual video real time. The three second delay would have been like how long it takes to update the video to the computer or whatever. But the video was being recorded live. So when the video itself occurring wouldn't have taken three seconds. It would have taken three seconds for it to transfer to the computer and then be sent back to earth. Okay. So what is, how is the camera filming that lander? Whatever you want to call it. How's it filming that? I'm not sure. I mean, there's no one there. There's no one there, right? They didn't leave somebody on the moon. Right. So they set up a camera and they set it to watch the thing and then to track an object most likely. Or they just set it up to go up at a certain speed after like if they set the ignition point to be, I don't know, five minutes, they could set the camera to wait five minutes, then pan up like there's a bunch of ways you could do that. None of that is none of that is spectacular. Like an eighth grader could do that in their backyard. And they did that in 69? Yes. Like literally an eighth grader could do that right now with Legos. That is not hard at all. Like a Rube Goldberg, you could just set like a string and a rock. And then if you set the string to be long enough and set the rock to fall down a hill, it will eventually cause the camera to pan up. That is very, very not hard to do for an eighth grader 50 years ago. Okay. So the claim here is that they set up some type of time delayed remote control apparatus on the camera to perfectly film when they launched off to track it. What was the model that they used, you know? No, you could use like a billion models. Anything would work. Stick holding camera up could work and the vibrations cause stick to fall and then camera pan up very easy. Like none of that, absolutely none of that is even surprising. That's an ad hoc rescue fallacy. No, that's just a basic example of how to do the thing you're saying is really hard, which is actually just a really basic thing that could be done in a billion ways. Because you don't have any proof of them actually doing specifically that, right? That's just your theory. Right, because I don't need proof. Like if I can give one example of a very easy way to do the thing, they could make up a better way to do it. Sure, a more accurate way, absolutely. Do I care? No. There's a million ways to do it and they all would work. It would all work. It's really interesting. Hopefully, everyone in the chat knows because this is what I said in my intro. I said everything that we're going to hear tonight that are supposed claims of validating that we land on the moon is none of them are going to be verifiable whatsoever. What? Well, that is verifiable. Can you make a camera pan up on an artificial timer? Sure. Stick. In 2024? Absolutely, I can. People could do this in 2000 BC. This is not hard if they had a camera. They could do it. But so having a camera on a timed device that causes it to pan up is very easy to do it with a stick. It's like how they caught rabbits. They tied a stick to like a, they bent it over and when there's any vibration, the stick would fling up and they'd catch the rabbit. The exact same thing. You can do that with the camera too. Any vibration causes the stick to go and it would fall and it would go up and this is very easy. The technology to cause a camera to pan up or cause anything to pan up existed 4,000 years ago. So you, okay. And I don't mean to sound rude.   It doesn't, it doesn't seem coherent because you're like, you're not, doesn't seem like you're listening because if I say something that's super, super basic that everybody understands that everybody knew about thousands of years ago and you're saying you're making stuff up. Thousands of years ago. It doesn't make any sense. Yes, yes. Like how to cause things to fall on a delayed timer is very easy, extremely easy. 3,000 years ago, we could do this. I think, I think we've, I think we've explored this one if we want to move into some new territory, I think we've come to a stop here. So if you want to continue on their big country, if you got another example or something from your intro, we'll keep rolling down. Yeah, sure. I guess we talk about the fact that we have no idea what the moon is, right? So we would not, we don't even know if it's terra firma. What terra firma? Terra firma is like another word for earth.  It's a rock. How do you know it's a rock? Because we have parts of it. I mean, there's multiple ways. We can use light informatics, which will show what its material consistency is by balancing light off of it. So we can know what it's everything that's made of from doing that. We also brought about parks, so we know it's a rock. So the parts we brought back, the one that we know of, it's been tested as petrified wood. No. So is there, it's not? There's lots that we know of. There's lots that we know of. They've been tested. We know they don't have any hydrocarbons in them or whatever. I think that's the word. So to show that they are literally different from any earth rock, because they don't have the right composites of organic based compounds that would be there if it was an earth rock. So we know exactly what it is. And do you have an example of one that you could pull up show? Hey, this one was actually tested to be a moon rock. Nope. Again, you could ask the people who would keep the data on that, which would be like creation cats fight the flat earth. Gotcha. So no is the answer. No, the answer is yes. I just, I don't need to provide it because that's already there. In a debate talking about this and you're like, I don't need to prove anything that I said. Just believe it. No, it's like, it's like you say, do I need to prove the sky is blue? Nope. You can just go look yourself. It's fine. It exists right there. First search. If somebody is colorblind, it wouldn't be. Right. So, I mean, but if you're if you're basic facts blind, that's, I mean, that would be the more fundamental problem that you might want to figure out. OK, so you said earlier, what did you say first about what we got to moon rocks? You said we we do something to the moon. I didn't hear you said that we know what it is. Light spectroscopy, spectroscopy. Light spectroscopy. Yes. Spectroscopy. What's what is spectroscopy? It means you bounce light off things and the way it bounces back tells you what materials it's on because the different atoms reflect light differently. Are you sure that's what spectroscopy is? Pretty sure. OK. Do you know what the three specters are? Specters. What? Spectras. Spectras. Spectra is for spectroscopy. Spectra is for spectroscopy. And I don't there's not three. There is three. There's not three. Continuous absorption and emission. That's not what it is. Spectre. The spectra is how we view things, right? So continuous is a solid or liquid. An absorption spectra is gases with a light behind it and it's produced by energization. And emission spectra is gases with light behind them. And produce cool thin lines. This is how we view it on the Roy G. Biv. OK. So do you have to do with anything I said? OK. So you brought up spectroscopy. Are you aware that there's two forms? There is more than two forms. There's only two. There are no or no, that's wrong. There's terrestrial. There is celestial and terrestrial. There's only two. No. In fact, there's lots of different forms that have to do with the wavelengths of light have nothing to do with where you're looking. So that's incorrect. You just don't know the basic facts here. So like there's infrared spectroscopy. There's X-ray spectroscopy. There is regular bands of light spectroscopy. So there's not two. You just made that. There's two. It's celestial spectroscopy and it's called atomic absorption, which covers UV. So I just proved you wrong on that one. No. That one's just wrong. Next. No. Yeah. Yes. You were wrong. Next. No. I'm not. No, you were wrong. You were wrong. Celestial spectroscopy. It's OK. You can be wrong. It's fine. It's a atomic absorption spectrum. But are you going to address that? I'm explaining to you spectroscopy.  You're wrong. It's OK. You're wrong. We know you're wrong. But this is wild. Are you going to try to address the argument? All right. Let's take Country a chance to explain what he was trying to convey there and if there's any confusion and then we'll move into a new subject. If that's good, fellas. OK. Well, no. He says to address the argument. So yes, we do like spectroscopy. We can see what the moon is made of and he's going to say no for some reason. But he hasn't. Yeah, correct. Because I'll break down how spectroscopy works here. Well, you don't know. So that's not going to help. You just skip to the part of why you think it doesn't work. I tell you why you're wrong. Well, let's give him a chance to explain that. And then, of course, we'll give you the floor. There are two jumps. So go ahead there, big country. OK. So terrestrial spectroscopy is an atomic admission spectrum. It's inductively coupled plasma electrothermographic furnace. So what we do is we take something. We want to know what it's made of. We take it. OK. And we put it in this machine. This machine. Nope. So I don't know how this has anything to do with what I said because we don't do that to the moon. Next. Dude, this is terrestrial spectroscopy. Right. So you're trying to explain to sound smart. You don't sound smart. Can you get to the part where you object to my argument of this doesn't work for the moon because magic. Yeah. Terrestrial spectroscopy. Tomic has nothing to do with the moon. All right. Let's let them explain their tea jump so we can move on from here. No, I'd like to explain how dinosaurs have wings. Is that relevant to the debate? No, it's not. Why? Because it has nothing to do with the moon. So if you could explain how it has something to do with the moon. Yes. If he wants to tangent off of random topics that have nothing to do with the moon. No, because I want to stay on topic of the debate. Well, then we'll let him add on how it ties into the topic after he's done explaining. No, I want to monologue about dinosaurs. I want to monologue about my church or my religious doctrines. No, well, let's get down to the topic. I'm trying to. Okay. How does this relate to the moon? Well, if you wouldn't incessantly interrupt me, I would tell you. All right. Without the meta, let's try to avoid the meta. Let's try to get into a big country. Okay. Terrestrial spectroscopy. Atomic emission spectrum. Individually coupled plasma, electrothermal graphite furnace. This is what we do. We take the divide. We take the item that we're trying to. Okay, I'm still. We don't do that to the moon. All right. Literally. We don't do that to the moon. We got to let him talk T-jump. I've asked you several times now. Dude, the chat's seeing it. I don't, I mean. And T-jump has left. If I put him on mute, he leaves. That's usually how it goes. Dope. Winner, winner, chicken dinner. You're just going to go into Q&A or what? It's like a secret power that I have if he's not going to call home. He just lost the debate and left. That's dope. We didn't even get to everything, Ryan. By the way, you've been a great moderator. I gotta tell you. No worries. Well, thank you. And yeah, unfortunately, I tried to give some space for our speaker to explain what they were trying to get into. And unfortunately, putting a speaker on mute has caused them to leave. T-jump, you're welcome to join back in the discussion. You don't have to leave us, buddy. There's no need for that. All right. I'm sorry, everybody.  Well, what we'll do is we will try to get what we can out of our super chats on C here. And then, yeah, we'll talk a little bit about the upcoming event because I think that's going to be cool. Actually, if you want to just give me a moment, I think that'd be a great time. So I see there's a lot of people still hanging out right now. We do have a live event that's coming up. It's going to be in Austin, Texas. It's going to be the Minds Fest. So you would have seen that advert throughout the debate. You do get a 20% off when you use our promo code MDD at the checkout. Check out that link in the live description. And yeah, let's see what some of you had to say and some of the questions that you had. And I will apologize in advance to LJ. I know you had some questions for T-Jump. I always appreciate seeing that you're hanging out in the live chat and you're keeping things friendly and keeping things rolling. So let us see here. LJ, thank you. I will read your questions here and I will let big country respond since T-Jump unfortunately decided to leave at the first sign of moderation. LJ, why can't helicopters hover until destination arrives? So he's asking, why can't helicopters hover until destination arrives? I'm not sure. That was one for T-Jump. So if you want to, like I say, talk to LJ, like I say, he's here to ask questions to T-Jump. But I did want to give you some interaction there, LJ. I mean, I don't mind jumping in on this. He's talking about how the atmosphere supposedly is supposed to be in lockstep with the earth. But that's more of like a good thing in the flat earth. I mean, I don't, you know, we can, I guess we can talk about it. But that's it. You're the moderator and so it's one V me. So no worries. Yeah, we'll we're here. We'll we'll hang out. We'll have a good time. Don't worry, everybody. We've got your questions here. And big country, I hope, you know, things didn't go to plan, but I hope as a good support, you're good to hang out here and answer some of these questions. Sure. All right. Thank you. But yeah, I won't keep you for a full two hours now. I don't think, you know, we're going to do these a little longer. Sure, that's cool. No, I'll go. I can see my kids. So yeah. Yeah. Oh, hey, I can. I can't second that. I'm at Nova Scotia and they went to bed two hours ago now. So nice. I got to drop them off in the morning though. So I see spin asks $1.99 retro reflectors checkmate. Good game. So I see spin coming in to give you a fan chat. I think they're a big country. Let you know he's in your corner. Now it's time to get to somebody who is asking you some questions here. Sure. All right. So can go 44 asks big country. You can bounce a laser off the retro reflectors left on the moon. You can do it yourself. Uh, so you could bounce lasers off before there was retro reflectors. So bouncing something off and claiming it is a retro reflectors isn't proof of the retro reflector. And quite for when TJ was talking about the laser comes right back to you. I've never everything that I've done research on this. They say that no, you launch a laser from us. It has to be a specific kind of laser a pulse laser strong enough to reach the moon to come back. But what comes back is not a laser. It's just data on a computer. It's just a set coordinate plane that they presuppose on their sky vacuum. So all right, let's carry on. Can go asks again big country. You can do T jumps ham radio experiment. It does or not require to know the medium between you and the moon to work. And they asked T jump to explain but as of once again, T jump unfortunately has left. So we'll let you respond there big country. Sure. I don't I don't know enough about ham radio to pull an answer out of my butt to say, Oh, okay. I'll just try him. Plus you have to have a license to do ham radio. There's a lot of training. So yeah, I don't know. I don't know a whole lot about ham radio. So all right, no worries. We can carry on there. But yeah, I can't go if you have any other questions that are not related to the ham radio. We'll try to get some more out. LJ $1.99 says there's photos and vids showing stars through the moon. That's correct. Yeah, the I think it's called the lunar lunar wave has been filmed too. It's pretty interesting. I'm not making any positive claims that that means the moon is plasma or anything like that. But yeah, stars have been observed through the moon. No worries. All righty. LJ asks again, so sorry. LJ, I know you wanted me to, like I say, ask these to the other side. Why can't we see the moon at any point during the eclipse? Why can't we'll kind of eclipse solar eclipse lunar eclipse? Why can't we see any of the moon during the eclipse? I would need to know what kind of clips you're talking about. I think a better question is what does that have to do with us landing on the moon? No worries. Let's carry on. Thank you so much again, their big country for answering these questions and entertaining the live chat after things went a little bit south. But yeah, sometimes happens on modern day debate. It's a completely open space. You know, we aren't censoring things. We're not scripting anything. You get what you get. You don't get upset. That's what we tell the kids. All right. So don't get upset in the live chat there. Kango 44 asks to you, big country, recently a private company, intuitive machines, landed a lander on the moon. Was that part of the lizard man conspiracy? How do you verify that they landed something on the moon? You just take their word for it. I'll answer for him because he can't answer. Yes, you'd just be taking their answer for or they're there. He would be he would believe in you. He would be believing what they said. Yeah, we put a lander on the moon. Of course, there's no evidence of that whatsoever. So saying a private company did it. It's just saying a private company did it. All right. LJ had also asked how can space not have oxygen without a container? Correct. All right. And LJ also asked, I do want to read your questions here. LJ, like I said, even though we don't have the other side. If Earth is too big to sea curve, how do ships disappear? That's a good question. From the bottom up. Okay. I see. Spin asks for $1.99. Veritasium did a retro reflector laser test checkmate. Sorry. Say that one more time. Veritasium did retro reflector laser test. I may be saying that wrong. Veritasium, I'm not sure. Yeah, I don't know. Is that a company? Is that a person? Is that a type of laser? I have no idea. Again, it's an unverifiable claim. I mean, you're asking me to answer a question about something that's very specific that I don't know who that is or what that is or if that's a company. All right. Let's carry on then. Can I go 44? Thank you, everybody, for your super chats. If you have any other questions to ask the big country related to the moon landing hoax, get them in the live chat because a big country is willing to answer your questions here. And we're going to have some fun before we close out the show. And once again, want to remind you, you get 20% off when you use MDD at the checkout for our live event coming up here. So, LJ, how do you know you see 55% of the moon if you never see 100%? Yeah, that's correct. During a new moon, you can't. It's so funny they say that we see the dark side of the moon during a new moon when you can't see the moon. Got you. Okay. And let's see. LJ asked a question directly to T-Jump. So, we'll carry on. ICSPIN Correction Mythbusters, not Veritasium Laser Test. I'm sorry, ICSPIN. We already explained that. We're not sure exactly what this laser test is that you're referring to. Oh, gotcha. But I do apologize. We won't be able to get too much more on that one. But I do see you have some other questions and we'll try to get those ones addressed. Kango 44 asks, wow, big country, they accuse you of being super dishonest. You showed a graphic of the Indian moon landing. No one claimed it was real footage. They said it was a graphic. No, it's not true. If you watch the whole video actually in their command center, that same video was playing on their television screens. They said it was being broadcast live. ICSPIN says, why'd Russia confirm we went? Didn't they hate us? No, Russia didn't hate us. Russia doesn't hate us now. For some reason, it's part of that whole red scare. And quite frankly, because I can sit here and postulate about why other countries said that we will land it on the moon when we said that we did. But it's just that, right? It's just a hypothesis. It's like the same question as to why would somebody be lying about the shape of the earth, right? I have no idea why psychopaths are psychopaths. I have no idea why habitual liars habitually lie. But to answer the question about why did Russia confirm? Because in my belief, Russia can now say, well, fuck, we can do it too. There's no reason to deny what somebody can do. If in fact, you'd like to do the same thing and pull the wall over your eyes of your followers or your citizens or whoever, it just becomes, it's the same thing with nukes, right? So nobody denies that they have nukes because everyone wants to have nukes and mutual assured destruction. All right, ICSPIN asks again, thank you for answering that one big country. So ICSPIN asks again, when astronauts land in 2026-ish, what's the excuse? So just as a thought experiment, if they say we land in 2026, what's the excuse is what he's asking? Lord only knows, dude. We were supposed to go there next year. Matter of fact, there's an article that anybody can look up in the chat. Like I know I'm reading some of the chats here as they come in through. It's funny, a lot of people say that I'm delusional, but don't say why. There was an article that came out that said that they had planned to build property on the moon. There's like a 3D printing company that's already rendering drawings out of Texas, I believe it was. So it's kind of like. You got it. ICSPIN asks again, spectroscopy needs like, container. That's correct. Which I was eventually hopefully going to get to, but you know, it's all right. It's all good. That's the difference doing terrestrial and celestial spectroscopy. Terrestrial spectroscopy is actually done in a physical container with multiple, multiple controls to ensure that there are no pollutants to give you a false positive of the test. Celestial spectroscopy is we look at a light and then we determine what it is based on the colors that we know. Of course, there's no way to control the pollutants between the source of whatever we're looking at. Let's just say the sun, that would be claimed to be 93 million miles away. You'd have to go through outer space, micro asteroids, the upper atmosphere, smog, dust, dirt, debris. How do they control that for taking that out of the test and getting a false positive of the answer is they don't. All right. Ziff Filey says, rage quit. They're a member for 18 months. Richie Constitution says, big country, you have no idea what spectroscopy is. We just did this part. Oh my goodness. There are more than two. What is mass spectroscopy? Mass spectroscopy? Oh, I have no idea what mass spectroscopy is. No worries. And the first, the other part they said was there are more than two. I think that was talked about a little bit. So did you have anything to say to Richie on that? Well, if any spectroscopy is done on Earth, it's done in the form of terrestrial spectroscopy, which is done in the container. It's the only way we know what something is composed of. All right. No worries. Bug says for $2, stop having Ryan host on this platform. FFS.  Ryan's done fine. Ryan was letting it go. And quite frankly, we were having a good conversation. And then he didn't like what I was saying, and he freaked out. So I don't, I mean, okay. I mean, honestly, it's one of those weird things where it's like you can always mess with James if you don't like it.  Anyway, we're friends, you know, and we're partners in this platform. So unfortunately, if you don't like it, this is our platform. Bitter truth says, do you have any evidence against moon landing? I'm assuming that that is for me, right? That's from bitter truth. He's been on here before. So yeah, I think he's coming for you. Yeah, that would be everything that I demonstrated in my opening. See, because I actually gave examples and I have plenty of citations with that. We didn't get into a whole lot of screen sharing. Let's see, everything T-Jump did when he came in here was like, no, you can just go check it. So he didn't actually bring any evidence to substantiate, which is what I said in my opening. I've watched T-Jump debate before and all he says is no, oh, go look for yourself or I didn't bring that with me. All the claims here. The guy that's not here anymore, but I get you. All the claims you heard to solidify that we landed on the moon were unverifiable every single one of them. All right. I see, Spin, will you commit to learning ham radio for truth? No. I'll give you a reason why. I work 60 plus hours. I'm a general foreman for the IBEW out here in Kansas. I have one child who's three years old, another one on the way in June. Plus I host four shows. We do five. I play ice hockey. My son's an ice. If I had dedication to learn ham radio to see if we could bounce our ham radio signal off the moon, I just don't have that kind of time. Now, I'm not saying that radio waves don't bounce off the moon, so. All right. We got one last question coming in and once again, big country, thank you so much for answering these questions. I know it gets a little dry when it's just the two of us and I'm just here girling you from the live chat, but no worries. I appreciate, like I say, answering these questions. Actually, another one just came in. So we got two more from Bitter Truth. They're both for you. I don't. I think our audience has realized that you're here and you're answering questions, so Bitter Truth wants to, he wants to come at you. NASA collected stones from the moon. Are they lying? Yes. Okay. Did you want to talk about what those stones might be? I've never heard that they collected stones. Or are there are stones? You know, the stone is a stone different than a rock. You know, the one that has been tested that they wrote an article about said was petrified wood. I know there's claims that there's other rocks. Well, that's great. Where are they? What are they made of and have they been tested and where could we find those? Haven't seen them. All right. Bitter Truth asks again, you need to bring astronomer. Even Russia landed. Is he saying like modern day debates need to bring on an astronomer? I maybe, maybe. I don't know. Maybe we should have brought better truth into the discussion had we known you were here earlier. I think we've already committed to the fact that this is going to be a bit of a shorter one, guys. But if you would have been maybe here a little bit sooner, yeah, we might have been able to pull you in here, better truth. So maybe next time. I guess I'll answer real quick to that. Like, so astronomer aside, right? Russia saying that they landed on the moon. How do we, how do you verify that? Right. Because originally it was asked earlier, it was Russia was our enemy. All right. And all you have to do is read a book by Gary Young called Nunn-Derekkala Conspiracy. The one Cold War was taking place. We were actually giving Russia wheat because they were in a wheat shortage. It's not something you do to your enemy when you're in war with them. But just to say that Russia landed on the moon. Okay, cool. How do we verify that Russia landed on the moon? Do we just take Russia, the government of Russia for being truthful? They would never lie about that, right? Like our government would never lie to us. So that must mean that what's happening in Ukraine and Russia right now, Russia must be telling the truth. They wouldn't lie about the moon landing, right? Obviously. So what's happening with Russia and Ukraine? They must be telling the truth. It's illogical to think that way. All right. Bit of a truth. That's because again, NASA has moon rocks. They keep it in a safe place. So the one that they were willing to give up to the ambassador, well, it's technically the prime minister, turned out to be fake. So they're like, we'll just keep the real ones. We'll give this guy a fake one. Yeah, again, that's unverifiable. All right. We come more pouring in. Oh my goodness, big country.  Honestly, since we started, just you answering the questions, I think another six or seven have popped in specifically just for you. So once again, it's great for us. So we really appreciate the support, especially where we have a live event coming up. You know, and I do hope everybody hits the notification bell for that. That's going to be epic. James is going to be there in person. So if you're in Texas, book those tickets. I will pitch it one more time. MDD at the checkout gets you 20% off and really hope we'll see you guys there. And yes, big country. This is super appreciated. Like I said, things didn't go exactly the plan, but we want to make sure that in the live chat that we give you a little round of virtual applause because like I said, you are taking the time to answer all these questions on your own and kind of just like I say, take the one side here. So appreciate you, bud. Sure. So Bitter Truth said, rabbits are just young. Not sure what he means. Maximilian Villa says, because you only believe things you can verify yourself, do you believe in heaven? That's a straw man. Never said that. First of all, second of all, you're asking a philosophical question and then asking me to apply the four senses to it. I'm not really sure how to actually answer that question. Do I believe in heaven? Yeah, but I don't have to solidify a belief. I could believe in a flying spaghetti monster for all I want to. All right, you got it. Thank you. Bitter Truth says, means all of lie except rabbit. Maybe that's a young comment. I don't know. Yeah, rabbits are just young. Means all of lie, L-I-E, except rabbit. I'm not sure. I think it's a quote. If you want to let me know better truth, what that's supposed to mean, I don't know, sounds kind of ominous. I don't know what's going on. Guillotine says, what evidence would you need to change your mind? Or is there none? Change my mind on the moon landing, I'm assuming is what he's asking. What would I need to change my mind? I would need for them to slap a forward-facing camera on a rocket and shoot it up into the sky vacuum and then land on the moon, live feed, no cuts.  They find it very interesting on all the rocket launches. They never face the camera facing upwards. Probably because they could never demonstrate what is claimed to be as far as the Earth being the ball, spinning and doing all that stuff. Because the concept of there's no up or down on a ball, like I get what they're saying because I've seen Star Wars, like you see the ship come into a planet and then it just always lands right side up, so they could never recreate that in a live video because it doesn't exist. But that would be my answer. You got it. Well, thank you. Eric Erpelding asks, you work at IBW. What you ask about the moon could be asked about electrons. How do you know electrons exist? I don't. Electrons never, yeah, electrons never even been observed. Then they say, to follow up, how do you verify electrons exist? Or exist, sorry. How do you verify that electrons exist? Well, I think he's focusing more on the word, right? How do you know electrons list? We could have called electrons Barney. It wouldn't have mattered. How do I verify that Barney exists in the place of electrons? Well, electrons have never been observed. It's just a colloquial term that we use to differentiate between potentials, right? So if you have a positive and a negative, there's no such thing as positive and negative electron or electricity, right? It's just how we colloquial name things to identify them. Everyone, thank you so much, and thank you once again to everybody that's in the Superchats. We have a couple more to go as they keep pouring in. This is great, like I say, everybody, especially, like I say, we have our upcoming event. These mosquitoes are out. Can you see them? They're flying around me here. Oh, I left the window open earlier, and I was seating my lawn. Really bad time to be leaving my window open when I'm disturbing all the bugs. Anyway, let's carry on. LJ asks, Ryan, do you believe anybody has ever landed on the moon?  Anyway, let's carry on. I'm supposed to be an enigmatic, unbiased host. If you've never seen any of the aftershows that we've done, that's great, because I want to go back to being exactly that, because I make a lot more friends that way. It seems it's just better. When I'm treating people based on how they act versus what they think, it's better for me. Richie Constitution says, did you Google mass spec yet? Is it one of the two? No, I haven't Googled anything. All right, no worries. Bitter truth says, Russia, NASA, lying except Moonland Refuser. No, not really a lot of punctuation there. Russia, NASA, lying... Russia and Lya... Yeah, I think that's what he's saying. Russia and NASA are lying except Moonlanding Ref... I'm not sure what you mean there, Bitter truth. That's a little bit... This is about the rabbit thing, though. It's fine, it's fine. Thanks, Bitter truth. Message me on Discord though sometime, and we'll have to get you back on the show. I think it was great when you were on. So let's try to focus on the last one here. Bitter truth throws in one last one. All right, this will be the last two, everybody. This is Daryl Carly says, for big country, so are you saying the astronauts didn't hold their pee for eight days then? No, they pissed in diapers, didn't you know? They unzipped their space zippers and just let their weaver hang out on the Moon, and they peed their name in it. NASA was here and whatever, I don't know. Men in diapers running around in outer space. Yeah, unless, unlike us podcasters, we just turned our chairs into toilets. We got a whole plumbing system, it's sophisticated. You should check it out, it's cool. I love it. Yeah, you don't have to get up when you're gaming, it's fantastic, you know. Where's sock? That's great. A couple more came in. Bitter truth says, explain to me what is the quantum physics? Explain to him what the quantum physics is? Rabbit, they said. Explain to me what the quantum physics is, Rabbit. Is that what he said? Yeah. Explain to me the quantum physics. You're asking me to explain what quantum physics is? Yeah, that's a little bit, more than maybe we can unpack, but if you want to, like, you know, if there's anything that you want to offer there to bitter truth that we can or we can just carry on.  No worries. I know what the quantum leap is, that's about it. Daryl currently says, so no golf on the Moon. It doesn't sound like that's what we're rolling in right now. Listen, dude, if you're about to embark on one of the greatest achievements mankind has ever made, you take your wallet, your keys, and a set of golf flips. It's very obvious. Like, I hope everybody in the chat, like when we sit here and talk about this, like you do realize they're just making fun of you, right? Like, there was a video that we pulled up last week on our show that we were talking about, these Russian cosmonauts that were in this supposed space or spaceship or whatever, they're floating in outer space. And he had a barbell with, like, 500-pound weights on it, and he was lifting it up.  Yeah, bring the barbell. Get that in here. Bring the barbell in and get some weights. It's all for show, man. It's ridiculous. Well, there you heard it here. Yeah, you can't forget your golf clubs. I don't play golf, but I definitely would need to bring a guitar or two. At least, so... Yeah, that would make sense. Yeah, that would make sense. Make some music. All right, a last one coming in. Guillotine says, and like I say, this is going to be the last one. Voss says, get Arun Ra on here once.  But as for right now, we're going to focus on our upcoming live event. So Guillotine says, so if they have a live front-facing camera on Artemis the whole way to the moon, you'll believe the moon can be landed on. Sure. Sure. All right. And when was Artemis supposed to happen last year? Oh, darn it. Did it get delayed again? Rats. Maybe next year, maybe the year after. All right. Thank you, big country. Did you have... I'll give you up to a minute and you can give a closing thought on what we've been hanging out for about an hour and 20 now. So yeah, if you want to give your closing thoughts on everything we just experienced in the last hour and 20, I'll give you... What are you going to have up to two minutes? Sure. Sure, why not? It's all yours.  Oh yeah, I wish the debate would have went a different way. I thought we were being quite cordial, honestly. I mean, we weren't slinging mud or anything like that. I'm not sure why that took place. You know, maybe we can come back on the future and do it again. But unequivocally, without a doubt, no, we did not land on the moon. And every evidence to suggest that we did land on the moon is unverifiable. Now, this is not me saying that if I can't verify it myself, it cannot be done or I cannot believe in it. However, when they make positive claims that are extraordinary, we need to have extraordinary evidence to provide truth to those claims. So I'll wrap it up here. Man, Ryan, you've been great. Thanks for having me on. This is a long time coming. I know we've been trying to do an episode... Or not an episode, I think it's a podcast, right? A debate now. It's been actually almost two years that I've been trying to get on. But I know James had stuff going on with school and all that, so it's all good. It's all good. But thank you, everybody, that showed up to watch. You know, there's quite a few people that were watching tonight, so hopefully you guys got something out of it. It's funny. I'm reading a lot of the stuff in the chat. It is impossible to hurt my feelings that I'm seeing some of this. It's something that cannot be done. Especially by... It's our superpower. You see? You can't hurt people that have established lives on the outside. They're trying to make fun of me with the Dude Rage quits, anyway. So I'll wrap it up here. If you don't mind, a shameless plug. Our show, the Whiskey Beer and Conspiracy Podcast. We have five total shows. So we have Whiskey Beer and Conspiracy. We have What If, Tavern Tapes, Smoke Break with my co-host, that's him and his wife. And then I do a Flat Earth Friday show that's live on Rumble, Rock, Finn, Kick. Telegram, TikTok, all kinds of stuff. So if you just type us in, you'll find us, we'll pop up. But yeah, man, this has been great. Ryan, you've been great. Modern day debate. I'd love to come back on in the future and do this again. So that was awesome. But thank you. Awesome. Well, it was a pleasure hosting you. And yeah, once again, just to remind everybody, hit the like button if you haven't already. We really appreciate it. We still see just a little under 500 people are hanging out right now. So if you hit the like button and boost us up in the algorithm, that'll make it so more people get to see this video and see what transpired here on Modern Day Debate tonight. And also, as the most important, James is going to be live in Austin, Texas. He's going to be doing the Mines Fest. And he's going to be hosting some hot ticket people. You've seen them on Modern Day Debate like Alex Stein and Destiny. And Lauren Chen is going to be there to be debating. And also, there's a couple other events going on. So yeah, check the link in the description. I won't hold up our guest too much longer here. So I will say goodbye to everybody here and then bid our guest adieu. So goodbye, everybody, at Modern Day Debate. Keep on sifting the reasonable out from the unreasonable as our great Lord James would tell you here on Modern Day Debate. And I'll see you next time.


Hello and welcome to E4M Talk Show. Our guest today is Mayank Shah, category head, Parle Group. Welcome to the show, Mayank. Hi, thank you for having me on the show. Mayank Parle Group has been a regular advertiser on TV, especially during the IPL. How significant is the role of collective viewing for your brand? I think very important, primarily because if you consider sports, I think, you know, sports typically is consumed on the go when you are alone. You know, it's normally on the go, you will try and consume it alone. Typically what we have seen is sports is best enjoyed with friends, with family, and collective viewing takes it to a different level. Even with IPL, we have seen typically what happens is, you know, people get together either with friends or family and viewer, and it increases viewership. It also increases, you know, the enjoyment as in when you're watching it with everybody. So it makes a huge difference, you know, when you're talking about sports like IPL, where collective viewing plays a very important role. And it's not just about that. It's not just about enjoyment. It's not just about the fun question. It's also about, you know, the increased viewership that you get. So as we all know, IPL is not just restricted to male viewing anymore.  I think what more can an advertiser ask for when he's getting something like, you know, entire family or entire bunch of friends getting together and watching it. So how do you plan to leverage IPL marketing during key matches like semi-final and final? Well, we have a few plans in terms of, you know, running promotions and stuff like that internally. You need to associate with IPL, you know, if you're running a program, I'm sure you would be knowing about it. So you cannot leverage the brand name unless you are not part of IPL or directly associated. The sponsorship happens to be on TV. So you do not have rights to, you know, use IPL branding. But yeah, internally, you know, because we are sponsoring it on TV, we are going to run, you know, a bit of promos where probably we may send, you know, some of our contest winners and stuff like that internally. I'm talking about, you know, sales and those kind of things and certain business associates. You may send them for watching matches. So can you please share a marketing strategy as a as a broadcaster partner? Yeah, so ideally, you know, the primary motivation to advertise on IPL is because you get a viewership pan India. This is a unique event. I think cricket is, you know, one sport which gives you viewership and more so pan India viewership. So we all know there are two things which really excite, you know, Indians. One is cinema and another is cricket.  However, when you talk about sports, it transcends all the boundaries of, you know, language and regions and it gives you viewership pan India. That's one of the biggest motivations for any advertiser to advertise on a sports property, especially something as big as IPL. So that's one of the primary reasons that when you talk about strategy, when you're talking about impact, when you're looking at, you know, probably going all out all India at one go, I think IPL offers you a great platform to advertise. How successful your association has been, you know, so far in terms of ROI with related to IPL? I think, you know, it's just started so difficult to say. I think we need to wait and watch because what we've seen, you know, over the years is that there's good traction that happens in, you know, viewership or your good viewership in the beginning and towards the end. However, you know, we've seen, you know, better viewership at least in the beginning stage this year compared to last year. We're waiting and watching on how it pans out throughout the season. So you're hopeful that, you know, it would be good. So ideally, we would expect it to continue, you know, at the remaining at this levels.  I think that would be great. So waiting and watching, you know, for the outcome of the entire season. I think it's a little too premature to talk about, you know, ROI at this stage. We have ratings just for the first week, which have come in waiting for the next week ratings, which should come in next two days. And can you please tell us about your creative and media agency? Yeah. So our media agency has been zero Zenith Optimedia through whom this entire deal has been done. And creative agencies whose creatives are running. We have quite a few creative agencies, but the ones whose creatives are running on this IPL are Rediffusion and ThoughtBlog. Actually, in general, Mayank, what is your media mix? Generally, I think, you know, TV remains one of the dominant mediums for advertising, given that we are into consumer products. Digital is catching up now. So probably a few years back when digital was about just 8 to 10 percent of the total spends today, it says high as almost about 20 to 25 percent. TV is about 60, 65 percent. And then Malins goes to other mediums like Press or even, you know, Radio and Outdoors. So when you say TV is, you know, very significant for you. So do you do you mean to say connected TV as well? Yeah, connected TV is part of it, but connected. We normally, you know, consider connected to be part of digital. Not really part of traditional TV households. Secondly, I think, you know, connected. If you look at the total universe, it's still a small number, although growing, but still, I think, you know, it's too small a number to really choose, especially when you're talking about a client like us who's into, you know, consumer products where typically the ticket size is not really very high. I think the numbers of CTV are not really significant, you know, given the numbers right now, they're not significant for us. That means you are not advertising on CTV at all? Not currently, not currently. I mean, you know, specifically targeting that separately does not make really sense for me at this stage. Okay. Ajay Mayank, your marketing strategy during pandemic, it was amazing. You evolved quickly and I think you won the race as well. So I would like, you know, to understand how it has evolved now when the markets are completely open and, you know, and at the same time, there are a lot of restrictions, you know, in terms of budget, in terms of inflation and all. Yeah. So I think pandemic, we did a great job in terms of, you know, quickly turning around things. We were first to hit back the market. I think it was within days. Within four or five days, we were back in the market. We should also thank government for really, you know, understanding that the sector in which we are and the category in which you have biscuits happened to be, you know, food for almost everybody. In fact, I like to put it this way. Parle G is not a biscuit. It's more of a staple for most Indians and the kind of work that was done by brand during pandemic was phenomenal. We gave up with three-crore packets, you know, free of cost to people in need. Almost everybody walking back to their village to probably, you know, people were not able to venture out of their homes where literally surviving on the packs of biology, which we had distributed through government. So the kind of goodwill, the kind of brand love that we generated during that particular time was phenomenal and tremendous, which is even helping us today because, you know, people know, I mean, if you walk the talk, I mean, we always say Bharat, Kabna, Biscuit, Parle G, but when you really walk the talk, you may say so. But when, you know, nation needs you, if you really stand up, you rise to the occasion and do that is when people would really appreciate it. And that's what we saw. People really appreciated huge amount of brand love that we saw, you know, during pandemic and even after that. What has happened after, you know, pandemic and as things started, you know, putting back in place in terms of economy opening up and stuff like inflation was a big challenge. It was a challenge last year. And I think, you know, most companies struggled. There was a bit of struggle on our part as well. But I think, you know, we were able to do well relatively given the brand love. We relatively, you know, escaped unscathed. So that was not really, you know, so much of an issue. There although inflation did probably, you know, limit the quantum of growth that we were having in the last few years. However, I think things are looking, you know, up back again with inflation under control and rural economy now, you know, reviving. We are seeing demand coming back from rural India. We're very hopeful about the coming year. 23-24, hopefully should be, you know, really a great year for everybody. Can I ask, you know, emerging marketing trends? I think, you know, a lot of things change during pandemic and we are seeing, you know, acceptance of those things as a habit. So be it, you know, the channels through which we are selling. So Ecom, you know, got very well accepted. And we are seeing continuous growth happening. So probably, you know, the kind of contribution that we are expecting from Ecom, which was pegged at about 10% by Nielsen study in the next 10 years. We may see that happening in the next six or seven years. When that study was done, Ecom contribution was just about less than 1% to the total FMCT. Today it's upward about 3.5%, 4% kind of thing and only growing. So hopefully, you know, in next five years or so, we can see rather than 10 years, you know, we'll see probably 10% contribution of Ecom coming to the total FMCT. So that was a very, very important and significant trend that we saw.  So we saw a lot of people, you know, adapting to digital medium, a lot of growth in OTT and other platforms. So consumption of digital media group, registration on OTT platforms grew significantly given that people were at home. Also another important trend on product category or brand front was, you know, people becoming more and more health conscious and, you know, it sustains. I mean, even today as we speak, generally people prefer to buy things which are, you know, relatively healthier. Pandemic has taught us that lesson. So most consumers today are trying and gravitating towards, you know, products which are better for them, healthier for them. Mayank, now the last question. I think Parli is going to complete 100 years in 2029. So I would like to know about your expansion plan. And also do you have, do you plan to expand your product portfolio as well? We have been doing it since last few years. So if you look at, you know, from what we started, we started as a confectionary company in 1929 and 1939. We got into biscuits. The first biscuit that came up was biology and prior to that, from 1929 to 1939, we were largely selling confectionary orange candy was our brand then. And since then, you know, till almost about your 2000, we were into those two categories, confectionaries and biscuits. Close that we've gotten to many other categories. We got into bakery where we are present into husk and cakes. We've gotten to snacking in a big way. So we have Western snacks like chips and bridge category. Bridges typically extruded category with Indian seasoning. We are big there. We are into traditional Indian namkeens or snacks like, you know, namkeens and bhujiyas and mixtures and other things. That's been doing very well for us. Over and above that, we have got very recently into breakfast cereal and staples like Ata as well. Ata, always available in global market. We extended it to domestic market as well. So now we have Palaji Ata also being available. So I think if you look at very recent in very recent years, we've gotten to quite a few categories which are really big. When you talk about Ata, it's almost about 2.5 lakh crore category. Very big that way. So breakfast cereals is another big category and a growing one, although niche. We've got into those. So I think our hands are full with them. And at least in the next few years, we would be looking at establishing ourselves in those categories, making a mark for ourselves or having a significant share in those categories before we look at getting into other categories. Thank you so much, Mayank, for taking time out on time. Pleasure to be your concern.