So we are honestly so indebted to them and really appreciate their willingness to host us. Also want to say thanks so much to our speakers as this is going to be a very special one folks. I think it's going to be a very deep and interesting conversation and we want to let you know whether you be a Flat Earther, a Glober, whether you be a Christian, atheist, Republican, Democrat. We are glad you were here. We hope you feel welcome and if it's your first time consider hitting that subscribe button as we've got a lot more debates coming up. In fact tomorrow we've got two alone including Matt Dillahunty going against inspiring philosophy on whether or not there are good reasons to believe that God exists. So with that folks very excited. Want to let you know both of our speakers were very thankful for them and their links are in the description.  I need to hear more of this right now. You can by clicking on their link in the description box just below just on there. So with that we're going to have team skeptic starting today. He's going to be basically making a 10-minute flexible opening statement and then we will have Nathan making his 10-minute flexible opening statement. And following that we'll have open discussion followed by Q&A. So if you do have a question feel free to fire that question into the live chat and as always super chats will go to the top of the list and they also allow you to make a comment. We do ask given that both of our speakers are doing this completely for free. We do ask would you please show the most respect you can in your questions or super chats as we are really indebted to have them on this channel. The debaters really are the lifeblood of the channel and so we really do appreciate them and hope that you can show them that warmth as well. So with that very excited folks I'm going to hand it over to team skeptic who is going to make his case. Thanks so much both of you for being here. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for hosting this. I've said this since finding your channel that I love what you do.  I do believe that the Flat Earth is an absolutely most ridiculous idea in the entire world because we actually walk this planet. You know what I'm saying.  I'll show you how to do it tonight. The first thing I want to do is first say thank you to my sponsor and the people that are that are hosting this event for us and that's artistic encounter. They are amazing people. They do amazing tattoo work. If you're in Dallas definitely got to check them out. Check out some of the artwork on their website at tattoo dot com and then of course I said thank you to James and Bell girl would you come here please. Okay so for tonight's debate I said that I was going to go and get me a really nice new shiny. Yeah Dinger to use. It's alright. Yeah so let me un unmask the Dinger for you guys so you see it's brand new fresh never been dinged before. Okay so anyway as we come across ridiculous ideas and expose them for their ridiculousness we will be hitting the Dinger as well. Now let me get my notes for my three different proofs and I'm going to step off because we pull up the accelerometer video. Now the accelerometer is something that every phone is built in with everybody here has a smartphone I'm sure and if you don't it's unfortunate but okay so the blue line is showing that I have one G of force let's drop my phone three two this is the demonstration right here that I want to show I'm going to step on the airway. Okay the blue line is showing that I have one G of force let's drop my phone three two. Not accelerating is it one G in the vector of the center of the earth. Now in this video as you see go ahead and see how it jumped up to zero there. As you see when the video when the accelerometer is in freefall it actually. Okay the blue line is showing that I have one G of acceleration vector that it's basically feeling. See how it jumped up to zero there. Excuse me what's called a test mass and the test mass when in a accelerating state will demonstrate inertial forces these are what the phone is reading and in its natural state the accelerometer does read 9.8 meters per second squared directly towards the ground. Give me one second to get my next piece up.  Go to the one called bubbles. Okay now this is a practical demonstration give it one second before you start it Stephen. Okay this is a practical demonstration that anybody can do at home. What you can do is this is actually bubbles in freefall. When you have bubbles that are not in freefall is it loading up. So to get rid of that I'll remove the box all together and just attach the bubble to the water bottle. You won't be able to see the bubbles quite as well but you can still see what's going on. And there'll be a lot less wind resistance so a lot closer to zero G. Let's see what happens. Okay water bottle dropped without a box. Three two one drop. Hover in place and this is due to no gravitational vector being felt by the bubbles. All right go to the next also you'll notice I want to point out one other thing you'll notice that when before the bottle goes into freefall the bubbles are actually not circular they're kind of compressed down a little bit and this is due to the pressure on the bottom side of the bubble being different than the pressure on the top. When dropped you'll notice that there is no pressure being applied to the bubble and the bubble actually just forms a sphere you can go and roll it. Oh was that it? Okay yeah that's it okay. So the last thing I want to say about gravity and we'll go to the ciliate loxotis video. I've showed this one before but I already know that my opponent is going to say well you can't use unnatural stuff you can only use natural observations. So this right here is the ciliate loxotis it's built with a natural organic accelerometer inside of it and this is due to the fact that the ciliate loxotis has to know which way is up and down so that it can find the most optimal environment for it to live in. If it gets into an environment that has less oxygen in it then it knows that it's too deep and it needs to go in the opposite direction of the gravitational vector so this right here is a natural organic accelerometer so that way when people say oh I can't use it because it's not a natural thing it's programmed this and that no it's not that's completely natural right there. Second point curvature will you go to the blink test and I'm going to go ahead and step back over here again so I can narrate what you're showing. Okay this test was done by Reds rhetoric and this was done in I believe Tampa Bay as in the video. It's a test showing two different observations one from one side of a bay and the other from the other side of the bay or closer to it and as you can see there is a huge something that's blocking all the buildings that are obviously still there and not being able to be seen in the video. The blink test is here is designed to show you that it's not just optical compression it's not looming it's not anything else that anybody's going to say it is it's taken with a Canon P1000 the camera of Flat Earth or camera of choice or whatever you want to call it so there's not going to be no it's programmed these are optical devices that Flat Earthers basically live with and live by. We're going to let this just roll kind of as self-explanatory. Okay as you see this is from taken from one side of the bay and you can actually see the horizon the Tampa Bay horizon or Tampa Bay on the horizon I'm sorry. The next picture will be taken from excuse me the next picture will be taken from a much closer point of view we'll show the rest of the skyline that's being hidden and then there's also it's been shown so that you can compare the tops of the two buildings that you can eliminate any kind of perspective argument or anything like that no the buildings are all lined up the tops of the buildings are all lined up but from one point of view when you're further away there's a significant portion of the lower half of the buildings that are being blocked by something and guys you can say whatever you want it to say but you know what it is it's the curvature of the earth. All right now we'll go to Mr. Bob Noodle if you'll bring him up please this is a demonstration of rotation rotation so here's the funny thing the surface of the earth can be treated as if it's a single frame of reference okay so that means that as we in this single frame of reference if we have something that's let's say we put something that's a ballistic missile we shoot it from the equator if the earth is not spinning this missile should stay along the same line if we let's say we fire it do north it should stay do north we should never see any kind of movement left or right from the missile any kind of movement would would violate Newton's first laws of motion which say the objects that are in motion will stay in motion and they'll stay in motion at the same rate unless a force is acting upon them. Now here's the thing the rocket really is still not violating Newton's first law it's still maintaining a direct flight it's ballistic it can't change it's it's off the surface of the earth it's just traveling in a straight line but to us on the earth since we're rotating it appears to deflect in the direction of rotation when fired away from the equator. Now this right here this will demonstrate a practical demonstration because not everybody has ballistic missiles sitting around nor does anybody have expensive laser or fiber optic gyroscopes but a flat earther did did go out and get one for his demonstration to prove that the earth didn't rotate and this was his result obviously you can go ahead and play the audio on this one. We turned on all the way to the earth one of the people in the community actually purchased one for $20,000 but what we found is is when we turned on that gyroscope we found that we were picking up a drift a 15 degree per hour go Bob keep doing experiments like these help prove my point daily all right it's done okay so those are my points those are irrefutable points there's not going to be a way of explaining this I'd love to hear somebody try somebody who's a little bit more qualified than my opponent but at the same time that's what I'm left to deal with at this point I'll concede my time to the moderator and he can pass it on over to that guy thank you very much team skeptic for that opening statement we will now be I'm sorry we will now be switching it over to Nathan Thompson and we again appreciate both these speakers being here as we want to give everybody a fair case or a chance to make matters on an equal playing field so we'll have same thing flexible opening statement 8 to 10 12 minutes and Nathan Thompson thanks so much the floor is all yours microphone one second all right hopefully you guys can hear me I want to say thank you to James for inviting me out here to do the debate I really appreciate that you flew me in from South Carolina so much appreciate thanks team skeptic for being here to talk about whether or not the earth is a tilted cartoon spinning ball or the flat stationary earth that we all observe the first point I'd like to go over is does the earth spin now we're taught in mainstream science that the earth spins 1039 miles an hour at the equator well there's two problems with that and that is it would create one of two effects either the atmosphere would rotate as a cohesive body with the earth moving with the earth or there will be what science calls a Coriolis effect and the atmosphere would move separately from the earth so first I want to go over the atmosphere moving cohesively as one synchronous body there's a problem with that and the problem is that earth's atmosphere would have to increase in velocity the higher you go up so as an airplane takes off from the ground it's moving in a thousand thirty nine miles an hour but as it extends its radius from the earth it would have to increase in velocity and that means that all that atmosphere would also have to be increasing in velocity the problem with that is there's no force that would cause that gravity allegedly pulls all things down not sideways so I choose to reject this hypothesis because a column of air will not move as one cohesive body as a result of moving your hand back and forth or as a result of the earth spinning a thousand miles an hour and what I mean by that is if I move my notebook left to right in front of my face all the air above my notebook is not also moving left to right that's not how fluid dynamics work so this is also not even what mainstream science teaches so if anyone tells you that the earth's atmosphere moves with the earth they one deny mainstream science and two they they presuppose earth's movement and they'll talk about how well if you're in a train moving straight and you throw a ball in the air the ball comes right back down yeah well if you're in a train that's not moving at all and you throw the ball in the air it also comes right back down so not a good argument now this is what science teaches is that there is an atmospheric blender effect or a Coriolis effect what would really happen if the earth spun guys this is an indisputable law of fluid dynamics what would happen is it would move faster towards the center or the surface of earth like a blender and it would move slower towards the outer regions the problem is we don't observe this either because earth's atmosphere does not move separately from the earth observe a hot air balloon or a helicopter or drone smoke in the air airplanes traveling east to west do not have drastic differences in journey times from airplanes traveling west to east so as we see here consequences of a spinning earth and atmosphere guys there would be drastic differences in journey times traveling east as opposed to traveling west if the earth spun a thousand miles an hour I mean even with a 29 mile an hour crosswind airplanes have a hard time landing so to think that the earth is moving a thousand miles an hour when they can barely land at 29 miles an hour it's pretty much ridiculous that's my first argument is that the earth doesn't spin it doesn't work if there is an alleged Coriolis effect it doesn't work if the atmosphere moves with the earth my second argument is that the atmosphere would cease to exist on the heliocentric model because of the second law of thermodynamics could the atmosphere even exist without a physical barrier so space is allegedly an infinite vacuum okay and then we have nineteen point seven pressure here at sea level and I'll agree there is a gradient because earth's atmosphere is what's called a closed dynamic system the gas in our atmosphere is an homogenous and an isotropic so it's moving around and it's different in all directions but the necessary antecedent to all gas pressure be it static or dynamic systems is closed container if it's not closed the high pressure systems move towards the low pressure systems same thing when you put your hand on a burning stove the hot moves into your hand and you experience a burn on your hand if you have a vacuum next to a pressurized atmosphere the high pressure system the pressurized atmosphere would move into the vacuum so that an analogy I like to use it's like asking can a tire rim have air pressure around it without a tire while in a vacuum or could a tire rim have a pressure gradient around it without a tire in a vacuum the answer is no it's just common sense but it's also law of entry that's why if you look up pictures of the South Pole pictures of satellites pictures of earth solar system they are all cartoons the heliocentric religion is based on cartoon cosmology outdated pseudoscience real science needs an observation a hypothesis and then rigorous experimentation you cannot simply observe something and then declare what is happening which is what we saw here with the ring laser gyro and if you're going to observe and declare that that is earth rotation being measured by the ring laser gyro well then I would ask well why is Bob Nodell when he does the test at 14,000 feet he's experiencing over one degree difference in alleged earth rotation when he changes altitude at the same latitude so if you're at the same latitude earth should be all moving at the same speed but when you take that ring laser gyroscope and you move down in elevation you experience over one degree change in earth rotation no that doesn't even make sense it's not measuring earth rotation it's simply a fallacy called affirming the consequent where you observe and declare if P then Q P happens so Q all that we witness in a ring laser gyro is light moving we do not witness earth moving there's no naturally occurring phenomenon for that and there is no independent variable for that so when team says that's an experiment he is wrong he is scientifically illiterate he doesn't know what an experiment is okay so those are my two main points earth doesn't move and without a barrier we wouldn't have a pressurized atmosphere not sure if that's around 10 minutes but do I still have some time Steven do you know all right great he said accelerometer proves gravity because there's a 9.8 meters per second acceleration downward being measured all agree things fall at 9.8 meters per second but the problem with gravity is that Newton never formulated a hypothesis which is required for the scientific method and then that evolved into bendy spacetime which is Einsteinian theoretical physics which has no practical application to reality so thank you for my dad thank you very much Nathan for that opening statement now we will go into the part that makes me feel the most nervous and excited at the same time this will be the open discussion section so hold me accountable in the live chat if I am in any way biased do call it out I'm going to try to be as fair as possible just in terms of making sure that each person gets to make their case with roughly the same amount of time and so thank you very much gentlemen for your opening statements and we will now go into the open discussion time great you said earth curves at 24 miles you could observe it from the other side of the bay at Tampa I would like to know how can Chicago be seen from 57 miles away also I have six lighthouses here well just Chicago how can you see it from 60 miles away if earth curves point 666 feet per mile squared according to AutoCAD Pythagorean theorem and Sujita you would have to have a downward vertical drop in all directions so if that is happening why can we see Chicago from the other side of Lake Michigan I mean it's already been described and proven several times as to why you can see it on certain days not every day certain days and you you know this so there's no point in even bringing up something that's an irrelevant point or an irrelevant observation that's not an observation I brought up I brought up Tampa Bay one which was at a much closer distance and didn't rely on atmospheric conditions to make that observation the observation can be made by anybody tomorrow if they want they can be made the next day or yesterday it can be made at any time because the observations at that distance the the atmospheric conditions at that distance aren't really playing a role in the observation that I'm presenting is evidence so I would just do atmospheric conditions play a role well there's I mean there's absolute there's absolute atmospheric conditions that play a role in so they play a role action and and I mean their atmosphere the the miraging that can happen from temperature inversion those are different than what I was showing in my in my presentation so to argue a point that I'm not even bringing up without you even being knowledgeable or having any evidence to support you're just making a blanket comment comment of oh well what about this one observation I saw on YouTube you didn't make the observation you don't know the guy that made the observation you don't know the Chicago I did the Lake Michigan test I did it myself I've been there where's your evidence what do you mean where's my we can pull up my YouTube video of me in Chicago evidence okay but also evidence all right here's my evidence right here anyone visual anyone can go on Google Earth type in Chicago Illinois okay turn on photos in left hand column find this photo taken from the beach am I still sharing my screen Stephen excellent find this photo taken from the beach download the photo and examine it yourself okay so if the Ursa globe and the size and shape that we've been taught then only the top three hundred and forty feet of the Sears Willis Tower would be visible from this picture which is my evidence on Google Earth anyone can pull up so the Willis Towers active index for that day the Willis Towers 1000 refraction the refractive index you know this you're willing to present the evidence a visual observation with the evidence of refraction that you're that that with the refractive index to back up that that what we're seeing is something that we should see every day and not just under certain circumstances so refraction is going to cause the Willis Tower to come up above a thousand fourteen feet of curve sure sure why not I can actually bring up a video online showing extreme refraction in completely altered atmospheric environments that you would never believe that could even possibly be we're talking about light bending around objects that's clearly looking at it before the odd before the the atmosphere is densed around it by the pouring of I believe it was liquid butane on it super cool butane which simulated the environment to being in a highly refractive environment and what do you know the light comes was you could colors you can't even see now the sun the bright brightest fuck like they're right there the whole time but what was that what is it it's refraction right extreme refraction so your argument is that we're not actually seeing the object it's a mirage no my argument with that is that you don't have any of the evidence to support that what you're seeing is not a mirage well it has none of the characteristics of a mirage it has how do you know are you all of a sudden some kind of visual expert I don't think you're a visual expert do you know any of the characteristics of a mirage do you even know what a refractive index is or how to calculate it I asked I said it has no characteristics of your character right and then you said I'm not qualified it does not have care that I'm not qualified I was just wondering a statement may back your statement up with it with proof do you know any of the characteristics for a mirage yes or no that's irrelevant I'm asking you are you okay you're saying it was a mirage no I'm saying do you know how do you know it's not how do you know personally know it's not and then I said it has none of the characteristics and I asked you what are your characteristics of what makes you such a professional at visual observations that you know what a mirage looks like and what it does not look like well do you know what the characteristics of a mirage tell me what a refractive index is or how to calculate it why would I even listen to you on this topic for the next just to be on the on the same plane so the characteristics of a mirage if we do if we're able to kind of hash things so much if we're able to kind of hash out the characteristics of a mirage and actually discuss them like I think that will kind of get more that'll kind of directly hit the point at the point of the discussion rather than anyone's credibility and I'm waiting for team to come up with one of the characteristics of a mirage since of a mirage what do you mean would explain to me what you mean by a mirage there are inferior mirages there's a superior mirage is what type of mirage do you want I mean do you want me to give you an example of what I'm talking about or what a temperature inversion is well that's where the light goes into a higher temperature medium and because of the fact that it's a higher temperature medium the light bends up so that it appears lower than where it actually is so what type of mirage is causing the Chicago skyline to hover a thousand feet behind the Earth curve I don't know I'm not I'm not looking at your screen right now to try to visually determine exactly what type it is I told you before plenty of times I'll tell you again if you're going to be providing evidence then you need to be backing it up with the claims that you're making if you're saying that okay I'm seeing the Chicago skyline why is that and I say well it's because that we're seeing atmospheric conditions that allow on this particular day under these particular atmospheric conditions that we're able to see this observation that we're not going to see it every every day you can't prove me wrong just with one simple observation one simple picture that you don't even have a refractive index on the picture you're just saying hey look at this picture guys look it's more than I can see prove to me that it's more than you can see prove to me that there's no way that that's a possibility to occur on the globe under proper under like ideal atmospheric circumstances and conditions you can't all you can do is show the picture and go look it doesn't look like it's a mirage to me has no characteristics that doesn't work for me I don't give a shit about your opinion about that picture you're uneducated in uninformed opinion let's all right let's go back to Nathan yeah so there's also 57 miles away Joshua Nick Newicki he's got a famous photo the news said that it was a mirage which is basically teams argument it's not actually there guys you can see it but we're not actually seeing the city it's just being the images being lifted up over a thousand feet above the horizon but you have no evidence that that happens that objects could be lifted up over a thousand behind an alleged presupposed earth curve that you haven't proven all you have is things disappear bottom first and yes that changes day to day based on atmosphere conditions and it's because of perspective and so I agree things disappear bottom first it's not earth curve we see way too far you can see almost the entire Chicago skyline that was a nice attempt at a strawman because I didn't actually say that it was or was not a mirage I said that you have an uneducated and uninformed opinion and you're trying to present a piece of evidence that you're just saying I saw this on the internet and this is my explanation for it you don't have anything to back up your explanation and that's the only reason I'm saying I'm not accepting your evidence that there is atmospheric refraction out there that can cause things like this to happen I'll have Steven pull up a video right now showing extreme conditions that cause extreme refraction is that you would never believe if someone said yes I've seen light bend around something completely bend around a small object we're not even talking about huge distances like the earth we're talking about a small propane tank I see light bending around this propane tank so yes we can have that happen right here on earth under very easily created conditions light or an image light was an image like that around the propane tank like could you see around the corner of the propane tank team what the fuck does that even mean light you don't look around anything light comes to you and you see the light that comes to you so if you're bending light around a corner that's what's happening the light is traveling in a straight line it enters into a different medium it changes its refer that's with it what the difference is refractive index is why you should know things like this Nathan then it comes when it enters into that refractive index that higher refractive index begins bending as it bends around and it comes back out of that refractive index it starts straightening back out and you see it in front of you when it's not there it's over there it's a good distance over there and it's coming in the light coming off of it is passing through a medium that's causing it to bend towards you yes this happens and I can show you right now excellent the atmosphere is hovering the Chicago skyline over a thousand feet of presuppose earth curvature have you heard of Jay tolin have you proved that that can't be done that's my only question is have you proved that that can't be done if you'll put that up here so I can get this prove that it can't be done and I'll accept your proof that's an argument from ignorance you prove that Santa isn't real no yeah prove that what I just said that it explains your observation you have no evidence for what you say what you said he's talking about I just showed you pull it up on Google picture a picture that you don't even fucking know who took the picture I went there myself and recorded it myself you went through videos on my YouTube okay did you take the refractive index do you know that there is no way for that observation to possibly be possible on a globe earth that's the question so on a globe based on certain conditions an image behind a thousand feet of curvature is going to hover up because of those atmospheric conditions what are we doing here okay so it's hovering the Chicago skyline is hovering over a thousand feet of earth curve that you can't prove exists I'm telling you that you can't prove that that is not possible all you're just saying you're saying look you okay so if I give you if when I showed you that blink test and I just showed you the blink test right okay where he played it I was assuming you were watching it the blink test that he showed showed things disappearing at relatively close distances compared to what you're talking about okay so we're talking about things disappearing at relatively close distances and you're telling me that this one observation that shows something further than what I'm showing that's being not only the artistic encounter who's been extremely gracious and willing to host us but we've also been very thankful for our speakers and I do want to give a personal thank you to both Steven steen and his twin brother Tom jump as they have honestly been extremely helpful with the tech setup today and I'm very sincere about that big thank you to Steven steen and Tom jump as we had a little bit of a you know a lot of tech stuff getting set up and so we really did appreciate a lot of brain power moving through those guys so with that we will move into the next part no problem I do want to mention in case you have not seen tomorrow we do that epic debate between Matt Dillahunty and inspiring philosophy on whether or not there are good reasons to believe that God exists in fact that's going to be tomorrow and the link is already in the description for that debate which is happening tomorrow evening so we hope you can make it there as well as a debate between Tom jump which will also be in person and that's with Jonathan Sheffield on whether or not Jesus resurrected from the dead you bet having just a little bit of a lag yet so if it's possible if anyone who happens to be streaming right now would be willing to switch to their data if they're using the Wi-Fi we weren't able to connect to the modem so if you happen to be using the Wi-Fi right now it would be it might possibly help reduce the buffering and help us catch up with the video and for those of you who are watching right now do want to remind you if you are watching via live stream clicking refresh actually does usually help with the buffering so as we do kind of catch up with the video stream that should help as you're watching also on Sunday still at the artistic encounter who we as mentioned really appreciate their generosity are in raw will be debating dr. Mick Leroy on creation evolution so all of these debates will be in person that's dr. Mick Leroy and are in raw debating creation evolution in person here at the artistic encounter on Sunday afternoon as well as in person Matt Dill Huntie at the atheist experience studio with inspiring philosophy together in the same studio tomorrow okay so sorry for all that delay guys but here we go and I just want to point this out and this is why I refuse to accept evidence where people say hey look I saw this picture hey look I took this picture hey this is an amazing thing this should never happen if I was on a living on a on a ball or thought should never be able to see this because it's just ridiculous well this evidence right here is going to show you what extreme refraction does and what extreme atmospheric conditions can do to light around an obstruction a curved obstruction so please show this this simulates what if the colder environment does does increasing the refractive index you can go ahead and let it roll can you walk us through what's going on here yeah well it's waiting on right on the video to play okay there it goes all right so as the butane is poured on there it simulates a denser atmosphere which is pv equals nrt temperature and pressure both are the same as temperature goes down the pressure decreases the atmosphere becomes more dense and this will of course increase the refractive index so this is what we're seeing here is seeing something that you should not be able to see in less light actually bent around a corner this is and it's simply no magic involved just simply changing the temperature of the air or the density of the of the air that the light is traveling through I didn't I haven't seen what you're talking about happen what when does that happen well here you know what I'll just show you on my phone so that way there is no question and we don't have to look through the stream yeah I'm not seeing this object disappear behind the curve and then come back when you pour the butane on top of it you're not looking hard enough because I'm about to show it to you right now get it up to where it needs to be okay I can still see the object you saw the object and had multiple colors right green red yellow it's not behind the you can't see behind the curve of this butane tank or propane tank whatever it's kind of think that is I watch when the when it gets poured on there tell me what colors you see how do you know it's not just splitting the colors of the top of your tank please watch are you telling me that that's not on the thing before you can't see it before you don't see the red just rising up to the top yes mm-hmm so the red but you can't see you see a small sliver of it okay you should be able to see any of it you shouldn't be able to see any of it that's what I'm saying the light bin is okay so regardless of how much he says I should or should not be seeing it but you'd like to see it on camera I don't have a problem with you seeing it but you didn't take an object that was behind the earth curve and bring it back fully visible okay so what I've said on multiple occasions and I'll continue to say it again until you prove that that's not possible on an on the round earth I'm not going to accept that it's positive proof for or exclusive proof for the flat earth okay it's not how it works you gotta prove to me that it's impossible for that to be an observation that we can possibly see on a globe earth then you're working with something until then you're just working with this observation and like I said I'm not trying to be an asshole or anything but it's an uneducated and uninformed observation that you're just pulling out and saying this is evidence how big the earth and how much earth curve should we see that's irrelevant well how big is it what do you mean how is that irrelevant that's it what I just explained to you on why things why you can see distances further than what you think you should be able to see due to atmospheric conditions so until you make a more defined question and say how much should I see on this temperature with this much pressure and at this high I mean what observation I see you know what look down on the ground put your eyeball on the ground and guess what the earth the entire curves away from you at that point when you make your viewer height zero feet how high is your viewer height of course how far should I see how far should we see Nathan tell me on our model how far should we see well that's what I'm trying to find out no no no tell me you're the one debunking you obviously I don't know what I'm trying to learn what your model is also the audience might not know what your model is you're trying to learn it now what are you doing here you're also want to clarify what I believe is wrong so tell me how I'm wrong I don't want to talk about beliefs okay I want to clarify for the audience how big is your ball tilted earth in space has a circumference of about 25,000 miles excellent so at 10 miles at the equator at 10 or 10 miles how much earth curve should we see tame skeptic see that's that's the how ignorant your question is because you're not giving me a viewer height you're not giving me anything at sea level at sea level okay so how much should earth drop downward in 10 miles there's a zero of their equation out there that it's eight inches per mile squared it's not eight inches per mile squared can you please plot out what eight inches per mile squared is on a fucking graph and then show the world what eight inches per mile squared looks like on a graph and tell me that that's what I believe the shape of the fucking earth what do you want me to use autocad sagita or Pythagorean anything got any god damn thing out there just plot out the fucking plot out what eight inches per mile squared let's see how mathematically literate sure which one do you want me to use sagita whatever you want to use pick whichever one you want plot out on a graph what the graph looks like at eight inches per mile squared please and show the people of here how smart you are and how that's what I believe the earth looks like okay so you're about to look dumb as fuck by the way according to sagita at 10 miles we would see 66.69 feet of earth curve according to Pythagorean theorem according to according to according to do the fucking math Nathan plotted out I asked you to do something plot out that particular equation on a graph and tell me that that looks like a globe Earth I just graffit out plot the graph plot the graph please everybody please everybody just ask that 10 miles how much plotted out plot out the graph no plot out what you just said eight inches per mile squared plot that out on a graph and tell me that I believe the earth looks like that please okay so at 10 miles you did a blink test at 24 miles do you I didn't do it reds rhetoric did yes and time out do you know what the shape of the fucking graph is going to be at eight inches per mile squared are you that literate in math wow dude the bling you're here to prove me wrong are you that literate yeah the blink test how much earth curve did we view on reds rhetoric there wasn't a measurement of how much earth curve was there what was measured was to show that it when you get up closer and you don't have the obstruction and you compared those two things it's quite obvious that something is in the way when you're 24 miles away that's not in the way when you're just across the bay what did the Bay have waves they weren't even in the fucking picture they weren't even though the waves doesn't matter what do you even understand how perspective works now do you even understand that if you're looking and okay I'm gonna explain something to you for everybody that's dumb enough to use this argument of perspective when your eye level is this high for something no matter how fucking far away it gets for something to obstruct it more it has to be above that do you understand that no yes absolutely fucking necessary it's in the goddamn graph right there on your angle of attack let's let's hear just relax bro it's okay I want you to graph it out right now so if you if you do have a depiction of the graph if you have a graph no just asking an earth curve at 10 miles if it's a ball like he said 25,000 miles around you could plug it into AutoCAD at 10 miles there should be a vertical drop yeah please stop interrupting while I dismantle your globe religion okay so at 10 miles the earth to drop vertically if we're on a globe no matter what okay the earth would have to drop vertically tangent to your feet if the earth is a globe we do not observe a tangent vertical drop to our feet anywhere that's why you can see Mount San Jacinto from 123 miles you got a 20-mile blink test I raise your 20-mile blink test to 123 miles back to the entire thing please don't interrupt we let you rant and run around and dance around and show your videos for quite some time okay give you a little bit say still earth curve at 10 miles an answer do we have an answer for how much vertical drop we should see from sea level for earth curve at 10 miles team skeptic do you want me to give you your calculation at 8 inches per mile squared because that's not a fucking I'm still waiting for you how would you even know hey how about this I could just make up a fucking number Nathan you would have no idea whether I was right or not oh really yeah I could just make up a number that's why you know what you know why you want to know one second one second because you're fucking mad about a number of earth curve there is one second fancy I think both sides in this case have asked kind of for the the specifications for the case at hand so I think that's okay so what I want to do is I think team skeptic was asking for okay I think is both sides have asked for and that's a fair question so we'll go to mess the question and then we'll go right back to you I promise Nathan wants to know what the trigonomic answer answer to a question is that he just throws out and goes oh you can't answer that yeah I don't have a trigonometry calculator on me to do all the trigonomics fucking functions that I can't do in my fucking head because you want to use a basic simplified equation of eight inches per mile squared and I'm still at this point asking you do you do you even know what the shape is of the graph of that equation do you yes or no so you're asking yeah I'm asking do you know this yeah it's a parabola then why the fuck are you using it because it's accurate and stupid because it's again because it's trying to use an equation that's none okay I'm sorry yes because it's accurate up to a thousand miles how would you even doing well because I've got the autocad the Pythagorean theorem and the sagittar right here you don't know how to do the equations yourself no I do you don't know because I asked you how much curve we should see at 10 miles and you didn't know how much should we see 666 oh 666 and how did you come up with that Nathan I don't know how did you come up with that number how did you come up with that number what equation did you use no what equation did you use you gave the myth the equation right now don't don't avoid my question you gave the measurements for the globe question it's your measurements you told me it's a globe 25,000 miles around Einstein okay so I use your measurements he's asking for the equation which like it seems relevant so is it you know let's give him a chance he's asked for the equation and don't look for the answer give me the equation do the math right now I agree in theorem it's 8 inches per mile square and that's accurate up so dumb and that's accurate up to a thousand feet that's just an ad hominem I don't care if it breaks I don't care if you want to call it an ad-hom or not you're using an equation that does not even is not even relevant to the shape of the earth yeah you mean to say that your pizza earth is flying through space up it like this wouldn't that be a straw man wouldn't that be me telling you something that you don't believe in well guess what I don't think the earth's a parabola you think it's 25,000 miles around though I don't fuck it I don't think it's a fucking parabola you stop using these 25 pair of parabolic equations and saying this is what I believe because guess what you're fucking wrong autocad's not a parabolic equation autocad's a program they used to make engineering parts okay so you don't know what you're talking about you're just reading numbers from somebody else and believing them yes yes or no are you doing that yes or no matches are you doing that yes or no no no you're not oh you're did this yourself yeah you went out and measured yourself oh yeah I believe that where's your fucking evidence for that you can do spherical trigonometry on a paper you don't have to go then why the fuck do you think that the the the sun is where it is in the sky if you can do all this trigonomic equations how can you look up in the sky and say oh it's flat because guess what the position of the sun in the sky with all this trigonometry thing that you're actually saying that you know how to do to prove the shape of the earth and how much curvature and drop it is those same functions tell you that the where the position of the sun is in the sky makes your position absolutely false and there's no way to fucking say oh yeah put the position of the sun in the sky absolutely proves that the earth is flat oh yeah really we've done the fucking test can we get back to earth curves that's what I'm talking about and take a seat I know your globe religions melting it's 2020 and you still think you live on a tilted cartoon strong man so it we just like because there were a lot of questions fair questions just to make sure that has plenty of time to respond before yeah so you can do the math or you could plug a 25,000 mile around ball which is not a strong man argument because that's what you told me the size of the ball is into autocad you can use sujita or Pythagorean theorem they'll all give you the same amount of earth curve for up to a thousand miles the reason I use that equation is because nobody's doing sight distance observations over a thousand miles so if it's accurate up to a thousand miles for earth curve we can use it for observations being done less than a thousand miles I think your sight distance test was 24 miles which is much less than a thousand miles mine right here is a hundred and twenty three miles this is Mount San Jacinto done with infrared shout out Jay Toland now the problem with this is that an entire mountain in the background should have disappeared behind earth curve now you would yeah I don't care so you're saying that 7,800 feet of earth curve is hovering above the horizon because of atmospheric conditions okay so Mount San Jacinto is a hundred and twenty three miles away observer heights 150 feet the horizon distance is 15 miles the shore distance 19 miles curvature obstruction 7,800 feet okay at a hundred and twenty three miles according to your ball that's 25,000 miles around just with refractive index does it not let's give them a chance to respond we don't live in a model and the problem with that is if the earth curve was there then it would be visible the problem is it's not visible from anywhere I've shown you Chicago I've shown you San Jacinto I've talked about the salt and sea observations and all you're saying is show me a refractive index so you're of the opinion that the atmosphere is causing Mount San Jacinto which is behind 7,800 feet of earth curve over a mile of earth curve that the air is raising the image of the San Jacinto so we're not actually seeing the mountain no the image doesn't get raised it bends the light bends around the curve until you from what you're looking at you see the light coming from that direction when it's not it's coming from that direction and it's going in that direction and it's being bended up like bent up like that towards you and you're seeing it now if you can show me where that's not possible show me it's not possible I don't care about your observation that you just say oh this must be I don't care about your must-be's I want your empirical shit I want you to say this is why this is absolutely impossible on the globe earth and then you got an argument then you got a case until then you're just blowing air out yes everybody fucking see how dumb you are so my argument is that water is a natural level it's a property hydrostatics so that's why we see too far is because water is a natural level they teach in school 70% of earth's surface is water and and all water at rest which is the study of fluid statics says the surface of the water will be horizontal and level to its container so all water you've ever seen whether it's in a cup a bowl a bathtub a pool or lake or an ocean is one contained that's great bro great observation what does that do with your just relax team yeah just relax please I know I was just saying water's level and it's property of hydrostatics and the surface is a natural I want to let me finish I was just saying that I don't want to give you too much longer because it's a lot of information yeah both for the audience and even for team like everybody up here all the information like process so keep going but yeah so water's a natural level you look at water at rest it's called a specular reflection there's no light diffusion on the surface of water when you look at the reflection of something off a calm body of water because all bodies of water at rest are perfectly flat so that's our whole our nail in the coffin right there for the globe model there's no downward vertical curvature you see how upset he gets when I ask how much downward vertical curvature there should be because he knows it doesn't exist it's not there we can't find her it find it we can't measure it it's not observed and it's not observed in a specular reflection either so specular reflections there's no light diffusion team if you could respond to that I sorry I was listening to somebody give me some information on the no worries do you know what a specular reflection is and go ahead and tell me what you think it is and I'll just listen long okay I'll talk about it if I know what you're talking about go ahead but hold on you've been talking for a minute let me address some of your arguments for a second you haven't hey you know what you said hasn't has everything not been addressing what you've just brought up have I not bought up a point I'm gonna address anything about what I just said yes I have your observation your opinion that 7,800 feet of earth curve yes the height of the mountain please will you please talk about the the tallest part of the mountain the height of the mountain yeah no problem it's about 9,000 feet how much let me look I have the exact numbers right here one second and how much was supposed to be according to your eight inches per mile squared calculation 10,800 feet observable height is 150 feet curvature obstruction for your ball that's 25,000 miles around that you told me you believe in yeah okay 7,800 feet so there's still 4,000 feet above that you you're supposed to be able to see without the refraction there's 4,000 feet of them of the mountain that you're supposed to still be seeing without or 3,000 right 3,000 it's about 3,000 that you're supposed to be seeing without refraction not just because it's a it might be an optimally an optimal day for refraction the atmospheric conditions might be possible to see even more of the mountain that's not possible though even with the video I just showed right but it's it's absolute proof that the earth must be flat hellfuckin no world record we got the world record Bardet Crenz photo it's 270 miles so are you saying that atmospheric conditions are causing the Bardet Crenz mountain to hover above earth curve I don't know throw out another goddamn observation you have you're completely uninformed on and let me see what you have to say about it I have all the numbers here okay well let me get to a point that you've made since you keep making these dumb ass opposite uninformed observations where you don't have refractive index you can't tell me that it's a it's absolutely not supposed to be seen on the globe earth all you can just say is oh but look this is so much further than what my in completely incorrect calculation has to fucking say so let me go ahead and start reading off some of the shit that you brought up okay so you said that the atmosphere must increase in velocity well what kind of velocity there Nathan would you as it goes up in the sky is it linear velocity is it angular velocity what type of velocity is it supposed to go so dramatically high much higher as you go up and how much more should it go at let's say two miles up how much faster should the atmosphere so tell me first to find what kind of velocity you're talking about as it goes up and then second tell me how much faster it's supposed to be so I can show you exactly where you're wrong so you're of the opinion the atmosphere moves with the earth they both move around the earth at 15 degrees per hour yes they both move together around the axis of rotation yes so the atmosphere is moving with the earth that's what Coriolis shows us yes absolutely Coriolis states that the atmosphere moves separately from the earth the atmosphere is not physically attached to the earth any more than the air molecules inside of your car as you drive are physically attached to your fucking car okay so if it's not physically attached how does earth drag it with its rotation how does your car drag the atmosphere when it drives off why wouldn't you begin to drive you don't feel the air hits you in the fucking face well because the car is a closed container that was one of my arguments in my opening very incorrect argument in a moment because you absolutely have this predefined notion of what a barrier must be and you're absolutely incorrect on that as well so why do you care being on a ball in space to being in a car the atmosphere you don't have to I can show you a video where there's not where it isn't a closed car and the atmosphere inside of an uncontained system is still moving relative to the frame of reference yes I can show you that so it's not completely impossible just because you say you don't get it and it is impossible because when you turn on a blender yeah the center moves faster than the outer portion okay you agree yes yes okay so if the earth has a Coriolis mm-hmm and the atmosphere moves separately from the earth hello when did this just happen do you think the earth just started rotating last year and the atmosphere was there and they were all stuck in one spot and now the atmosphere just started earth started rotating and now we got to wait for the blender to catch up with everything I don't think the earth rotates I'm trying that's your problem nobody cares about your ignorance is I don't care about him either it does you and it does I showed you with the with the optical gyroscope I've showed I'm telling you with Coriolis there's no way you can describe how Coriolis is possible without talking about the rotation of the earth you would have Coriolis so just hurricanes just happened to rotate in one direction north of the equator and in another direction opposite of the equator the weather systems all weather systems just happened to follow what Coriolis force the existence of a Coriolis force would predict all of those follow that but there's no Coriolis force you have proof of that so your argument is that storms or do you have proof of what you just said can you stop interrupting me for to answer my question do you have proof that there is no Coriolis yeah of course I do show it to me you throw something in the air and it comes right back down no shit no shit right right right the atmosphere what what should happen what should happen tell me I'm about to no no tell me what should happen yeah Coriolis states that the atmosphere moves separately from the earth so if you look at Neil deGrasse Tyson's Twitter he says that field goals are made or lost based on the fact that a ball is flying in the air the atmosphere the second reference frame from the moving ball earth you believe in okay so you're using Neil deGrasse Tyson as your evidence hold on I'm explaining how Coriolis works okay I'm trying to be so dramatically long with your descriptions just get to the fucking I can tell you how you're wrong if the earth has a Coriolis objects in the atmosphere would experience a earth rotating underneath them that's what the Coriolis is okay and we experience none of that so every sniper out there says that that when they say that they're looking at a target oh yeah okay yeah let's do that a sniper argument because I can bring up a I can bring up a sniper on here that's a sniper on the internet that says when you fire in the direction of rotation your target will drop relative to you relative to your fur to the into the way you're firing and when you fire in the opposite direction your target will raise so so it's dropping or raising based on the rotation yeah and that would you just fucking brought up about Neil deGrasse Tyson how long is the even understand what the whole purpose of what he said was how long is the sniper bullet in the air for less than a second well sniper you have no idea that you don't are you just making an assumption on a video that you haven't watched just to support your narrative can we because you know what the you don't know how far sniper bullets go sniper bullets that are shot at relatively short distances don't necessarily take a Coriolis into account but if they are shooting at great distances which is usually done on a range they absolutely do take it into account I've got video to show well let's give him a chance to respond and we can come back to the video but go ahead Nathan so this gentleman's argument is that in a split second the earth rotated under a sniper bullet well my question to you is does earth rotate under drones helicopters hot air balloons or airplanes traveling west to east and east to west of course they do do you understand the conservation of momentum is a thing do you understand that in aerodynamics when you have aerodynamics and you put an object that is an aerodynamic object that is controlled flight it uses the air around it to control its flight not the ground beneath it the air around it so if it gets into the air and the air just starts taking off in one direction guess what the fucking drone isn't just going to sit there and experience the air going around it unless it has a sensor that aligns it to the ground no it's going to think that it's frame of reference which is the pocket of air it's in is completely fucking still and it's just going to go right along with the air that's how fucking aerodynamics works that's how come when you take a helicopter and you go above a spot it's going to rotate at 15 degrees per hour inside of the atmosphere not because of the ground below it but because of the atmosphere that it's inside of so the helicopter rotates at 15 degrees with the earth is what you're saying yes okay so why doesn't the sniper bullet do that what are you talking about it does conservation of fucking momentum you're you're adding earth rotated under the sniper bullet right okay listen if you jump up and down right now the earth rotates underneath you do you agree with that what in my model when you jump up and down you just because you don't understand it doesn't mean anything okay when the bullet is fired the bullet is ballistic do you agree with that yes or no so the earth when you agree yes or no quit trying to avoid my question you just know I'm about to prove you wrong so answer the question or don't do you do you understand that when the bullet is fired it's ballistic do you understand that yet like a ballistic do you understand that when the bullet is fired it means that it's not powered it's under its own fucking power it's been shot out and there's nothing else to guide it or anything okay it doesn't have power water bottle toss it in the air toss in there that's fucking ballistic right there yes it did you're ignorant no 15 degrees per hour we're not at the equator are we 15 degrees an hour right so we live on a ball that's why you don't understand what you're talking about because you make dumb ass comments like that right so 15 degrees an hour yeah right so earth's allegedly 24,901 miles around we allegedly have one day one 24-hour day so earth's allegedly traveling approximately a thousand miles an hour or what you call 15 degrees okay so if you're driving in a car at a thousand miles an hour and you flip a coin up is the coin gonna come right back down Nathan or is it gonna hit the dude in the backseat if you're in a car that's not moving at all and you if you're in a car that's moving at a constant thousand miles per hour and you flip a coin up exactly so what's your fucking point right now what's your point you're the one that made the point about tossing the bottle up in the water in the air and saying is the earth rotate yes it is wait is the earth rotating under the bullet when it's ballistic yes it is so if I fire a sniper bullet in the car yeah so whatever let's say there be a Coriolis if you what if you fire a sniper bullet in the car because that was just your proof a minute ago you said earth rotates listen how stupid you are yes listen how stupid that's just an attack the double speaking no you're the one who says earth so with that we will be going into the Q&A thanks so much everybody for your questions I'm going to work through as many as I can get we given that we have had a kind of a up and down connection we are going to try to make this we'll try to get through as many as we possibly can I can't promise we'll get through every single question and forgive me if we don't get through your super chat I'm very serious if you do want kind of a like a refund shoot me an email if you've made like a significant super chat hoping that it would get read you know we can try to kind of work with you on that as we try to get through as many as we can so thanks for your patience the stream appears to be back from what I'm looking at in the live chat so thanks so much we appreciate all your questions and here we go with those first questions so first I want to say thanks so much for your super chat from John Rapp let's see and these some of these I might have to censor so let's see so John Rapp it said the moon is an earth's atmosphere and since rockets need something to push on we so could have gotten to the moon sometimes as I'm kind of idling rather than debating he said so the moon the atmosphere extends out to the moon so we could have gotten there because the rocket would have had something to push off of we allegedly went to the moon in three days and the moon's allegedly 230,000 miles away so that means that we traveled 70,000 miles a day a day 70,000 miles a day and slowed down in earth's atmosphere landed safely and then came back with no spaceship on the moon to take or space center to take off from I mean if you believe that and we haven't done it in 50 years we did it back with the bunny ears on the black and white television you're kidding me dude got you thanks so much we are gonna jump to the next one and then we're gonna go to an in-person audience question Steven steen says watching sexy James live that's a really sick thanks Steven we appreciate that consistent and twisted next we do have an in-person audience question so thanks so much we appreciate it let me introduce this person this is Ruben right here he's a he's a good friend of mine but he's not necessarily a globe earther so he's not here to troll or anything like that he just has a question so I'd like to let him ask it okay so I don't know if any y'all have been to Cabo but there's like arches and then there's like a mountain or if you've been deep sea fishing in Cabo that's where it leaves from so leaving from there and not seeing it anymore if I were to put on binoculars could I see that mountain again if it goes under the horizon yeah well that depends on atmospheric conditions on if there's waves in the way there could be waves in the way there could be underwater underwater let me go under the horizon watching it go under the horizon lowering yeah because I mean essentially that's what I figure it would do as what everything does when you drive away from it kind of lowers under the horizon so with it lowering under the horizon if I were to pull out binoculars if I could could I see it that's a hypothetical it's hard to I answer an hypothetical like that we can see too far we can see that if there's a ball 25,000 miles around then there should be a measurable vertical drop of eight inches roughly eight inches besides numbers being visual and being a person that has eyes and you know you're a smart person and you know with watching say you're on the boat and you have binoculars you can have every kind of meter that you want to and you're watching the mountain go below the horizon completely below the horizon and you watch a binoculars yeah and you pull out your binoculars there shouldn't be a factor on if you can see it or not there is it's the aperture okay the amount of light being in taken through the optical how much of it can you see then if it goes completely below the horizon that's to be sure that it doesn't turn into a debate but hey I'm sure he'll be here for to answer that question with you I'll let you I'll make sure you get a chance to talk about that and thanks for the opportunity to let the audience definitely and so please do let us know those of you in the audience happy to let you ask a question and so we're gonna try to alternate back and forth between the online audience and the live in person audience as well so I just want to show yours yeah cool real quick I want to show them boats disappearing over the curve I've got a slide for that and one second guys all right here we go so I don't know where homeboy went but this is a boat there's a buoy there on the ocean completely visible but when you take the camera p900 or p1000 and you zoom out it completely disappears you can't see it anymore so nothing disappears due to earth curve it's due to atmospheric conditions angular resolution limit smog dust smoke inferior superior mirages there's lots of reasons things could disappear but it's never earth curve okay because one we see too far and yes the objects in the horizon that have disappeared if you zoom in on them they're still there now you can't zoom in infinitely because telescopes binoculars our eyes all obey the laws of perspective but telescopes and p900 and p1000 have higher apertures and can let in more light than the human eye so when the human eye says oh that boat's gone it's gone over a curve not according to a p900 not according to a p1000 not according to a telescope that's my answer one second just just just to get through as many questions I know that there's we're definitely gonna we're gonna go we're gonna kind of go back and forth between so next one is Alan H said ask Nathan how GPS works on a flat earth yeah just instead of global positioning system just pretend it's ground positioning system they've got over 600,000 towers in the US 6 million towers worldwide there's no reason to believe that your cell phones working because metal boxes above your head fall in a circle any box above your head that is falling move out of the way cuz you know what I'm just gonna go to cuz this is what I said Google.com images of satellites in space there we go now here we go James which one of those is real James or do those all look like cartoons just be honest that's moderator are those any of those real or are those all obviously cartoons I honestly I'm not saying this just to try to play what's the word neutral but I like I'm not sure any of those real I mean do any of them look real or do they look obviously fake graphics are so good right now that even if I thought they look real they could be fake so my what you're trying to show is okay let's say like this let's say 10,000 pictures of satellites exist let's just imagine if 10,000 pictures of satellites exist how many millions of pictures of artists renditions of satellites or people who just or put them in right maybe I should write real images of satellites in space all right now I put it here I put in that's exactly I put in real images I put in real images one second one second one second we we we really do one thing one thing we actually are we are losing a connection so we it looks like people are having a lot of difficulty hearing what's being said so we look like we're back so we will try to get through just a few more questions any other live in okay you bet I think I saw your hand first how can you explain stars because I look at the sky quite often and I see the same stars you're around sure and so okay the question is how do we see yeah yeah yeah okay great if you have access that you I should see different stars constantly and we do throughout the year we see yes at the same time let's say we look at solar midnight every night we're going to see a progression of the sky moving as we go around the orbit we will see that so that six months later we're looking in the opposite direction at a whole different set of stars in the sky it's all still the same stars that around us because now the stars that we saw six months before in the night time are actually we can see those in the daytime we just can't see it because our star is up there our stars the light so bright from our star we just can't see those stars that are in that side from let's say for me and you looking at the surface of earth looking up and we can see it at night let's say it's clear night no light pollution no anything like that we look up we see stars in the sky now the stars we're seeing in the sky are not in like infinitely across the galaxy but we see with our audience can hear in a live chat and the stars we see in the night are relatively close compared to the rest of the stars in the universe so now let's take this Dinger for instance okay and we're going to say that this this Dinger represents the bubble of which all the all of the stars that I'm talking about are in now let's say we're going to say that all the stars that are in our night sky all the stars that are in our night sky are located just right here on this Dinger right I take this thing and I just throw it out there and I say at any point in time you stop time and you go grab that Dinger right in its position and you look down at it how close are the stars all going to be on that Dinger they all just for whatever reason are they just going to migrate to the other side or they all going to be right here because we are in our own frame of reference our own galactic frame of reference we're part of the Milky Way galaxy as the Milky Way galaxy goes in that direction so do all the stars that are in the Milky Way galaxy this Dinger could be could be thought of as the entire galaxy with all the stars we see just representing a tiny tiny spot on that and throw it out there always going to be next to each other so always we're going to look out and see stars relative relatively close to us just like when we drive if you see a fly in next to you and it jumps up and starts flying it's not having to fly to keep up with you driving in the car it's just having to fly within its own frame of reference and if it stays with you no matter how far you go you can look over like this and see that fly every single time because it's in your same frame of reference it's going the direction you're going and at the speed you're going in my question was I get all that I get from that standpoint but I'm saying I should not see because we live in Rockwell so we have a good picture of the sky I documented I see the big dipper for three months that we lived there same spot got my neighbor said look at this it's in the same spot we looked at it we looked at it we looked at it finally when it became when winter finally hit it finally started moving that was three months out of 12 months it should have been since we go around the sun in 365 days I shouldn't have seen that for three months out of the year same exact spot it depends on your location on the on the face of the earth that because if you're in the southern hemisphere obviously you're not going to be able to see the northern star for instance and the big dippers apart definitely the big dipper as a northern star is one of the stars in that so typically when you're down at the in the southern hemisphere you're not going to be able to see that star and that right there is a good read is a isn't a point that needs to be addressed by any flat earth that thinks that the earth's flat and that stars kind of point them in the right direction towards that that that belief needs to ask themselves why can't they see the big dipper from below the the equator you know or the northern star now as far as that what you're asking and and it's still the same thing I mean when we go it it has to do with the length of the days number one because in the length of the days we don't have a perfect 24-hour rotation I think it's 23 hours 56 minutes and some odd seconds so what we say on our clock we don't stop the clock at 23 hours 56 minutes we stop it at 24 hours and that goes that's the next day so there's four minutes that then becomes accounted for and that slightly rotates the earth each night in in relation to your clock not in relation to the actual earth or the sky but in relation to your clock so each night at a different hour you're going to have a different star that's right in front not a different north star but like a different like when you're talking about the big dipper and you say let's say a portion of it like the bottom portion or something over time at the same time of the night for instance not changing time of night but at the same time of the night that constellation will be in a different spot every single day and 365 days will go around and it'll come right back down and be right back in the same spot and that's that's a consequence of our celestial geometry and the fact that we actually do rotate and it does take less than 24 hours to make a full rotation on our axis if it didn't then you'd have an argument because when we come over here if it was a perfect 24 hours for instance and six months later we would always be looking in the same direction like noon would then be midnight six months later on our clocks not not necessarily like how we see it because it is like that if we were to change our clocks to the 23 hour and 56 minute cycle then it would be every day we would see solar noon would be at the exact same time every day for every person on earth Okay Right But we see it all year round But you but that's the thing you should see it all year round because Well, you should see it all year round except for there's some that you will that will be visible during the daytime That you will not be able to visually see so you from being on this earth and looking up into the sky and saying I don't see this Constellation when it's supposed to be up at noon isn't really a valid point to be saying well That's just proof that stars prove that the earth is flat. That's just ignorance Thank you very much.  She's a Sarah. She's a troll She says big dipper actually does make a small circle on the sky as the earth turns on its axis Okay, I think in that case she's trying to answer a question rather than ask one Maynard saves Asked Nate Nathan you have answers to every conspiracy theory.  Could it be because you're just plain wrong Yeah, I don't know why the government hasn't shut me down yet You got it. Thank you very much. We're gonna go to a person Hold on just to know I worry that we might go into another discussion section, but So Nathan A question a question in a comment the question is Why explain moon phases and why Does everyone that sees them see the same moon phase exactly? At the same percentage at at the same time My second is a comment.  Yeah, yeah, you'll get blocked. You'll get blocked Yeah Keep your feelings to yourself. This is a dating show. Okay. I don't care how you feel about me God, dude, what a joke. I think there was a question Yeah, he want to know how moon phases work because he thinks moon phases prove we're on a spinning tilted ball Okay, the moon is its own light the light is putrifying them he said why you can't zoom in on the Sun or Why can't you zoom in on the Sun once it sets? You can Daryl Marble showed that in his presentation when we flew to South Korea And spoke about Flat Earth in South Korea So if you want to see that happen look up Daryl Marble's video when we flew to South Korea, it's in there Next question gotcha any other in-person questions Gotcha Team skeptic. Can you please tell me what your evidence is of the distance of the Sun in relation to the earth? Yeah, okay, so there's a easy way to calculate Well, it's not easy if you're not very well mathematically informed But if you don't have the proper astronomical viewing devices, but if you understand how Like the our celestial geometry you can then use the orbits of planets like Venus to Calculate where your position is relative to that planet and then you can also use Kepler's laws of motions to use the observations of Venus To determine its distance from the Sun using all these all these observations and applying just a little bit of mathematical You know trigonometry you can then begin to calculate Distance to the Sun using objects in the sky There's other ways of doing it by using you know sticks and shadows that's a lot of people don't like that a lot of people like This guy don't like that But it is a way of doing it because it's a if the earth is shaped a certain way Then there should be a certain observation and if the earth is shaped a different way There should be a different observation The same thing goes look if you if you're out there and you're a flat earth there And I'm sure you've got ten flat earth friends around the globe Okay, you got ten flat earth friends around this this amazing globe you guys can test this for yourself You can go when you can put sticks in the ground and you can each tell each other what the the angle of the shadow is The angle of the shadow doesn't tell you the length of anything It just tells you where the Sun is in the sky now go plot that out Okay, lay down a piece of paper take a string take anything and those works on both models of flat earth and around earth Any comment on that?  You can't tell anything Hold on one second You take two sticks on a flat earth you can do make any two observations and say yes these match But you had a third stick you come to a problem You had a four stick you get an even bigger problem You had a fifth stick you get an even bigger problem Using the stick method alone is not going to give you any valid data as long as you have one stick It's once you start adding more sticks once you start increasing your data points Then you can get a true understanding of what you're actually dealing with go check out the video We did with slice parking and all the people across the planet.  We did this We did the the the observations we plotted the observations and we came to one conclusion The earth is not flat It's a glow. Were there any assumptions like no no assumptions zero zero assumptions We just measured the position of the Sun in the sky Yeah, where's our fraction index for each individual observer? We're gonna go with oh no your refraction is refractions taking into account on all that the deal with refraction is this right here When when an object is coming in Well, hold on a second one second, okay? Well, we have it. We have it on line You can you can definitely slice bar cane go on his channel. We've plotted everything out We even have all the data points for anybody that wants to check it out. See how we plotted out Go on there and watch it yourself. I'm not going to say what's all I don't know what's all the data that's on there to answer the question Honestly, but I can tell you that all the data points that we took are on that individual Video and if you're if you feel like the video is in any error whatsoever Please make a video or comment about it because we've already put it out there just as an open thing We didn't ask people to make an assumption of anything Just take a measurement of where the Sun the position of the Sun in the sky is and send it to us and we plotted Got you. Thanks so much Another might have to Might be abbreviated as we do just a few more Mick Haley on thanks for your super chat. They said I'm a marine engineer and electrical engineer with extremely high degrees and Am one of the few people to quote-unquote circumnavigate The supposed globe why does the horizon always rise to eye level no matter the elevation? It's flat Wow Okay, so we've already done the test as well go to Sean Hufford channel. He did the test himself Not to mention Wolfie 60-20 does this in his airplane at Extremely high elevations where they can plot the eye level and then as the plane goes up You can watch the horizon drop from eye level, but you don't need to go to a plane You don't need to trust some international pilot or anything like that You can simply go to Sean Hufford channel and he did it himself with a drone You can also go into the Burj Khalifa, which I know all of us We can't really do that from here But at the Burj Khalifa or any tall building you can go down and at ground floor you can witness the The sunset and then you can jump in the elevator go right back up and sure enough that Sun comes right back up You can watch the second sunset Thanks so much Next up maybe just one or more one or two more so any other in in-person audience questions Otherwise you bet We check that you got me all right. Oh yeah, Nathan. I honestly I don't care what you believe. I don't I do care why you believe it so My question is not going to be on the science My question is going to be on where you're coming from so if I understand correctly from the things I've seen of you the videos I've watched and the interactions I've seen you have with other people you have a predominantly faith-based world view, correct Not at all because the pamphlet that you handed me that the Christian pamphlet that you handed me that proposed that You had that to me directly at the Flat Earth Convention. You actually handed one to me. I saved it So that but that proposed your faith-based world view that are you driving your information about a flat earth? I was a Christian for ten years and I thought the earth was a globe the entire time so you're saying that So you're saying that as a But you still hold that that religious viewpoint you're still a Christian is what I'm saying. Yeah, I'm Christian Okay, so that's what I'm saying. So but you're so your world view is faith-based Okay, what is where you're driving the base points of your everyone's world view is faith-based so that everyone's world It's not it's demonstrably when you wake up in the morning. Do you look at the floor before my question My so my question Nathan is this you don't care what I believe so your world view I care why you believe okay, so it's what I'm getting to your world view is faith-based When faith is demonstrably subjective Subjected to the easy individual open to interpretation as we've proven time and time again as Matt Dillahuntley will prove in his upcoming debate How can you base a scientific empirical world view on a viewpoint? That cannot be determined by anything other than your own subjectivity The Bible says test all things and hold fast to that which is true. So I did that and the earth's not a globe So that's why I believe you didn't answer the question.  No, no and open to interpretation I was a globe head for 10 years and a Christian The only reason I'm a flat earth or an a Christian now is because I went out and tested the earth and it's flat So my belief in a flat earth belief has nothing to do with me being Christian Yeah, it has only the fact that we see too far large bodies of water don't curve first movements never been proven all space is fake It's all cartoons.  Really? Well, you know, we have an astrophysicist in the crowd that is absolutely lying at you every time you say We've got Why do you think it's a he? Oh, I don't know Well, why isn't she debating me?  That was fun watching you dance. Next up. Thanks for your super chat from Jimmy This is a last question we'll have and so they asked Nathan to explain the game of thrones style ice wall So Nathan, I'm not sure what they're referring to If if there's yeah, so basically guys I say this all the time They put the truth in movies and on the radio and they put the lies on the news and in the textbook So the Matrix was a documentary the Truman show was a documentary We all live in a yellow submarine the wheel in the sky keeps on turning the full on the hit Hill sees the sun going down and the eyes in his head tell him the earth spinning round Okay, so there's lots of truth in TV. There's no truth in the textbooks You're better off learning where you live from game of thrones than team skeptic You're going to go from there Just want to say want to say a couple of things want to say a couple of things first. Thanks so much Artistic encounter has been extremely gracious. We really appreciate they have not asked for anything Completely for free have hosted us such as just extremely generous We want to say thanks so much to our speakers for taking their time Who have also said completely for free that they'd be willing to do this. So we really appreciate them as well I think thank you very much Nathan and team skeptic And also thanks so much for the help with the setup from Tom jump and Steven steen Thanks for your questions. I'm so sorry if we didn't get to every question We definitely appreciate them though and want to say thanks so much for your support as this channel really It really is kind of your channel folks and we want to say thanks so much for all your help Thanks everybody for being here tonight in person. It's been a true pleasure. So with that take care Keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable


Hello everybody, my name is Annie Kassirkin and I want to change the point of view now completely because up until now we have seen towns or urban places only from either the inside or from the bird perspective and we were talking about the development of the town itself or like the process of the urbanization but I want to go outside of that now and I want to see the village like from the town like from the village perspective. So let's see if this works. Yeah I want to introduce myself. I work in Schleswig in the northern part of Germany and I belong to the project Continuity of Research and Research of Continuity, Basic Research and Settlement Archaeology of the Iron Age in the Baltic region. This project has the so short to say has the aim to restore the lost knowledge about Prussian archaeology up until the second world war. My subproject is a little bit different from that but I will introduce you now to the subject project. It is a PhD project and it's still ongoing so I will not present about some results that are some final results it's more like interim results. So before I come to the settlement I would like to start with a graveyard. The area I'm talking about is the Sambian Peninsula and it's situated on the south-eastern coast of the Baltic Sea and it is nowadays Russian territory so the place has two names in the literature. The German name from East Prussian time is Viskiauten and the actual name is Mochovoye and the graveyard itself has the old name Kaup. So the coastline of the Sambian Peninsula is probably the world's largest amber deposit so this will become a potent later. The graveyard is the forest that you can see in the red circle and it was found more than 150 years ago and it was clear very fast that this is an exceptional graveyard because we have many burial mounds like about 500 of them and they're unusual in this landscape at all. We have here a Prussian culture and a downed burial mounds so this was already something unusual but we have also flat graves a few hundred of them in between these burial mounds and we also have a mixed ritual between inhumation graves and cremation graves so something quite exceptional for the region. Very fast it became clear that there is also a great number of grave goods that are also strange for the Prussian culture and it was found that they have a Scandinavian character so some of them have analogies on the island of Gotland and the middle Sweden part. I will not go into the detail of all the research of that was made on the graveyard I just want to mention that some of the finds were stored in the Königsberg castle which was destroyed in the Second World War and up until that point there was no real settlement found although it was always talked about that there should have been a settlement belonging to this graveyard of course and also when there have been buried so many Scandinavians probably they should have lived somewhere and in the German time up until the Second World War there was often used terms like a colony or very military terms because they found so many men like the ratio between men and women was two to one and they also found so many weapons so they were talking about warriors and so on. Today we're not using all these military terms anymore we're more talking about traders that were armed and we also still have many terms in the literature when we talk about the ski out and like early town or port of trade and another detail that I also want to mention just by the way is that we have a huge number of hillforts in that region in all East pressure we have a lot of hillforts but there's a big concentration on the Sambian Peninsula like for every other archaeological item or monument as well it all is very concentrated and dance on this Sambian Peninsula. In the early 2000s from 2005 until 2011 there was a new research done by Timo Ibsen who's so present today hello and he was searching for the settlement so he was not the first one who was doing this but there was very scarce hints to a settlement that might have been found so he took a sketch that he found in the archive by Max Ebert where he said that he found the settlement in the south of the graveyard so what Timo Ibsen was doing he first of all made a huge geophysical survey sadly it was not possible in the south of the graveyard you can see the graveyard in green on that slide because there are modern structures but all around the graveyard he could access the territory and the geophysical survey gave an overview where might be some structures or some places possible for settlement but the picture is also not easy to read because there's a lot of modern west like iron objects for example and they disturbed the the geomagnetical picture heavily and also there in the in the deeper ground there's like stones and they also give some anomalies so they were also done some drillings for the reconstruction of the coastline or the wetlands at least so a great a great depart in the east of the graveyard might have been a coastline and the Viking Age and for that might have been a good accent access to the Korean lagoon which is also accessible from the Baltic Sea and this might have been a good landing site so then they have been in huge excavations and there was kind of many spots where they have been settlement and most of them have been in the north and in the east of this graveyard this is a picture by Timo Ibsen and this represents the different phases of the settlement so first picture is mostly about the settlements or traces of settlements in the Neolithic time so we also have one very huge mound burial mound in the graveyard from the Neolithic time so this corresponds then in the second picture we see some traces of the Bronze Age mostly until the up until the migration period and the most dense activity what has been seen in the same time as the usage of the graveyard so from the ninth till the eleventh century and further the picture of the archaeological objects is not so easy to read because there was a heavy plowing situation already in up until the German time but also in the Soviet time there has been really deep plowing activities and also the German drainage system was destroyed so we have a lot of items in the plowing horizon and maybe we have only some deeper going archaeological objects like pits but we have beautiful wells and good visible fireplaces the house structures are quite small so we talk about small houses that are not in a dense structure and we cannot say that there was some some town like situation or organized town structure but we have an interesting amount of findings we have more than 300 000 objects and they can be dated mostly between the 7th and the 13th century and we also have some clear parallelities to the graveyard carved for example just just a few examples the black and white pictures are pictures of findings from the graveyard and colorful pictures are from the settlement I will not go into detail I just want to mention this sword pommel which is showing not only military aspects but also a statue symbol because there is silver inlay we have an interesting shift in the animal bounds from using more like pork and gold by the Prussian culture going into more usage of cattle later on and we have fish bones that indicates fishing in the Baltic Sea, Corinea lagoon and in the freshwater lakes around but we have interesting findings when we talk about trade so we have a number of weights or items that are secondarily used as weights like the endings of Horseshoe fibulas we have Byzantinic coins we have Arabian dear home that this one is cut so we clearly talk about the region of silver economy not of coin economy so there is a deep impact from distance relations trade relations as I mentioned we are in a region where is a great number of natural amber so we also find the semi of final produced amber beads or final produced amber beads but we also have like another imports like corneal or jet stone or glass beads just to mention a few of them we have production of metal production like these crucibles we have a molding form this is an interesting exemplary because this is made of bronze so it's not possible to cast bronze in a bronze molding form so you would use that for tin or for creating a wax model for further going to to process to make lost wax lost forms with this wax model there are examples of items that could be produced by this all right I will hurry up there's examples that could be produced by this molding form with from coming from Birka or all around but we don't have one fitting from Piskjotinica we have also preservation of organic material and here's an example analogy from Novgorod like this birch bark box I won't go into detail now so what we have is in the this graveyard is not standing alone in this vicinity so there is a huge amount of another graveyards all around from the Prussian time earlier time so it's clear that the Scandinavian settlers that arrived were not coming into into empty space they came into a functioning Prussian culture already and they just integrated so we have a network of small settlements working parallel to each other having connection to each other and we have indications by these items of trade that there should have been a large-scale trading activity but we don't have this marketplace yet and this is strange so there is new findings from all around the area so this is not a single case there is a huge huge trade happening in all the some beyond peninsula but we just didn't catch the trading port so just to sum up very fast we have this exceptional graveyard we have a network of small structures of settlements we have a very good statistical place situation for such a trading place we have all the necessary imports and exports for having such a trading place we have amber as a resource that could be traded but we don't have any written sources we don't have a fortification like a rampart we don't have a dense town like structure we don't have a marketplace or black earth or a landing site and my question is now this will go on in my research like can we can we just catch this trading point from from an outer view from an outer perspective like can we distinguish is it an early town or urban place or a port of trade what exactly is it and if you have some ideas some indicators of the existence of such a place or if you just would like to share your thoughts with you you're very welcome to contact me thank you