Hey, everybody. Today we're debating globe and space exploration skepticism, and we are starting right now with Howard's opening statement. Thanks so much for being with us, Howard. The floor is all yours. Thank you, James. Okay, is that full screen for everybody? It is. Awesome. I'll just hit play. Okay, so I'm asking to see if there's any clear evidence of a physical geometric horizon, because no matter what mathematics calculations you choose, it's supposed to be about eight inches per mile squared. Yeah, we've got rail guns that can zoom in on a target over 100 miles away and hit it. And we've got long distance observations that shouldn't be disregarded as mere light refraction that somehow happens to work out to the level of the observer every time, no matter where the light sources and no matter the altitude. There are statistical illusions like when we can raise the camera, it causes things to appear higher in the distance and lowering the camera can cause things in the distance to appear lower than things against the horizon. We can see that refraction of light causes things to distort or it'll mutate how something's being observed. So I'm asking to see an observation that's clear, because every time we see atmospheric refraction, it appears that the horizon is not a physical geometric position but rather an optical illusion, just like we can see the landmass in the far distance now, because it's a clearer day. There are observations at water level that are more reliable. Here's one from 52 miles away. Here's a video from 30 miles away, again at water level. And seeing the buildings from top to bottom suggests that there isn't 180 meters of curvature like you'd expect for 30 miles. Here's an observation of the Isle of Man from Blackpool, which is 85 miles, if I remember right, up to 85 miles distance, yet still no evidence of curvature. So after seeing all these observations on YouTube, I went and made my own because I live near Benidorm and everyone that comes to Benidorm can see the streetlights of San Juan beachfront. 20 miles away and we can see that we're water level because we're looking underneath the platform of the water, the cable ski, and we can see that the streetlights of San Juan are no more than, say, 15 to 20 meters from sea level themselves. So that's the observations we see too far. The next thing is, can you demonstrate how the star constellations appear pretty much throughout the whole year, considering that every six months were supposed to be on the other side of the sun, looking a complete opposite direction. This is what we would expect to see. Different stars and the same stars from different angles, because we're supposed to be going around the sun. And from winter to summer, six months later, we're supposed to be looking the opposite direction, yet we see the same constellations all throughout the year crossing the same path in the sky, just at a different time and no parallax and no anilemars like the sun and the moon. Orion's a great example, because it's above the equator. So you'd expect to not see it six months later. But we do. I don't trust NASA's footage, because here we can see that Jupiter's cloud formations haven't changed at all over two days. Yet on a video from 1979, we can see that they're constantly changing. And the layer above the red spot was flowing right then left then right again. It seems like their footage is inconsistent, probably cartoons, thanks to Walt Disney and Pixar. We even go on Google and it tells us NASA science for children. Maybe their inspiration is from Photoshop, computer generated images, and also landscapes like the Mediterranean Ocean. The big problem I've got is that they use harnesses. Why are they on strings?  You can see them grabbing the string right there. And it's not just the harnesses, it's the hairspray. Why is it that her necklace is floating? Yeah, a hair is rigid, proper stiffy, not convinced by the water experiments, because that could be CGI. We see it reacting different to different times. Show me bendy water, because maybe this is the biggest diabolical scam of all time. I'm not buying it. So they admit that there's marine fossils at the top of the mountains like Mount Everest, but they've given us an untrusty alternative narrative that goes against the 500 accounts of a worldwide flood, which would better explain why the Mount Everest was once under the ocean. Just like we see buried temples all around the world and star forts, over 5,000, many of them still buried under mud at the top of a mountain, which all, like the underwater cities, suggest that there has been a worldwide flood, like Noah, the Koran, and 500 myths. We see scientific experiments. We see historical artifacts and loads of primary observations that go against the globe model. And don't forget the harp shaped stone phenomena, which also supports a worldwide flood and discredits the globe. I'm going to use this as my third evidence because rough rock fractures into fragments with similar features. Whereas pebbles, also known as smooth stones, they seem to have a different origin, because pebbles smooth stones appear to be whole pieces that show a dark interior if they've suffered any fractures or damage, which correlates with the anatomy of organs in general, having a protective skin and a serous fluid, which supports the boiled egg theory from Mike Wilkerson, as when walking up mountains, you won't find any transitional stones. But when you go to the coastline, which has multiple directions of water flowing and compare it to rivers, which has one direction water flow, or you can find them buried in mud, which is technically no direction, no flow. Yet they'll either be oval, or they'll have a harp shape. And the harp shapes all have a flat top and either an indentation discoloration or even a hole at the top, which is kind of cool because hearts also have holes at the top. So yeah, there's no other reoccurring shapes to be found. They're all oval rounded or harp shaped. And all the harp shaped tend to have a twisted bottom point, just like a heart does during contraction. And yeah, there's 50 shades of gray, maybe because there's blue bloods in the ocean creatures and maybe land reptilian creatures. And whether rounded or harp shaped, the front is always multifaceted convex and the back is one sided and concave or flat. We see veins, meaty colors, layers of quartz, which could be fat. And yeah, we see random water erosion, but then we also see biological patterns. So we can ignore all of this evidence. There's 20 on Mike Wilkerson's list so far, just of the harp shaped stones that correlate to the anatomy and histology of hearts. And other organs like I say are either oval rounded, or they could be fragile organs like lungs that would break into segments or brains, which are very delicate. There's really petrified wood all over the world. And we know that hero Lamo Segato took the secrets of petrification of flesh to his grave. But you know, maybe someone's lying about dinosaurs, maybe it's a cover up for dragons and giants as this word of giant trees in the myths and I visited the Monaco mountain and Javier Spain myself, where there's over 50 characters, there's six that match with the histology anatomy of a ginormous elephants. We see massive rock formations with iron ore oozing out.  So yeah, there's a lot of conundrums with the globe model having a world flood, and a lot of conundrums with tectonic plates forming these mountains. Yet we see reproducible evidence patterns and make logical conclusions that if there was a worldwide flood, it would make more sense on a geocentric contained model, which doesn't have to be flat. It could be multiple dimensions like the Bible, the Quran, and the Egyptians depicted. Just like the evidence we see when looking at the experiments star in a jar, where we see frequencies like let there be light, for example, going through a cavity, a bubble, and it creating implosions which are light, which could be the stars and things we see. Maybe that's why we have a great rift in the night sky, because it might be the remnant damage of the great flood. Thank you very much. That's me. Thank you very much, James. You got it. With that, we're going to kick it over to fight the flat earth for his opening statement. But first, want to let you know, folks, we are absolutely thrilled for a lot of things coming up in the future, including this juicy debate at the bottom right of your screen. Atheist versus creationist, we have many more debates to come, so hit that subscribe button so you don't miss out on any of them as modern day debate is a neutral debate platform, hosting debates on science, religion, and politics. With that, thanks so much. Fight the flat earth. The floor is all yours for your opening as well. Hey, James, thanks for having me on always fun to be here. I can holiday. Apparently people still think the earth's flat so right. If the earth was flat, it's simple engineering projects wouldn't take into account the curvature of the earth. Engineering projects do take into account curvature of the earth. Therefore the earth is curved and one thing I'd like to talk about today is the London underground. Cross Wales tunnels of the London underground the new part, especially it's so long when they're being planned. You take into account the curvature of the earth. So, when the current cross rail scheme was developed in the 90s the planners use maps based on the old ordinance survey national grid reference system, known as the British National Grid or the BNG turned out to be really crude and have a lot of distortions and nowhere near accurate enough for what they were doing. Had they used normal street maps that it's all based on and then the cross rail tunnels could have seen deviations of up to 20 centimeters per kilometer of tunnel. And this was due to the curvature of the earth might not be a huge issue in some places but because this was the new tunnels I had to squeeze in and out between all the existing tunnels and sewer system so there were some gaps that were so small that if they hadn't taken into account the curvature of the earth then they would the drilling machine would have just driven that drill through one of the tunnels that was ready there. For example, the Tottenham Court Road had a gap so tight that had they not adjusted for the curvature of the earth. The tunnel boring machine that Paddington would have been sufficiently out of place by the time it arrived that the cutting head might have drilled through the northern line tunnels, which would have looked a bit like this. So this is showing you the Tottenham Court Road line and they had to this was where it was drilled and it went above the northern line tunnels and there was left a gap of 35 centimeters. This tunnel in particular is several kilometers long so if they hadn't taken into account the curvature of the earth. Because of the distortions in the map which, you know, were obviously a conversion from the globe to flat, it meant that this would have been off so much it would have actually drilled into the northern line tunnels below it. So there were a few solutions they came up with but none of them really worked and that was because there is so many different types of flat maps. But every flat map is a distortion of the globe in some form, but not all in the same way. And what it ended up with was because they were using trying to use different coordinate systems based on different distortions of the globe into a flat map that when they were trying to plan the route. They actually ended up with three points of the same latitude and longitude, which appeared to be in three different positions. And this was all due to the fact that all these maps had different amounts of distortions to account for the fact that the earth was curved but the map was flat. So it might not be a big issue in general but with the precision of what they were trying to do it became a massive issue. To reduce the scale distortion Crossrail made use of a customized projection. So they came up with a brand new distortion of the globe into flat, which was much more accurate, reduced the scale distortions from an average of 20 centimeters per kilometer drilled to just one meter per one millimeter per kilometer drilled. And this was called the London survey grid and had a new meridian which ran straight through the center of London. This caused another problem that now had two different sets of measurement data and they had to have conversion rules to ensure that plans based on the old BNG grid could be reliably converted into the new more accurate London survey grid. Adoption of the curvature correction ensured that all the design and construction data was created with a real world context and allowed for greater ease of mixing between the computer aided design and the mapping systems. Because this was more accurate than the other map because it had less distortion due to being flat. All this was needed because the Crossrail tunnels are long enough to be affected by the curvature of the earth. And if we go to let me, can I quickly share my screen please James. So if we go to the. This is the London underground topographical surveys and mapping. And it actually says, right near the top that the London survey grid is a transverse muckater projection with parameters chosen to minimize grid distortion caused by the Earth's curvature over the London underground area. The distortion is such that for large portions of the area projection corrections can be ignored and greatest formula in the London underground grid that was updated. But the entire point of this is that if they hadn't taken into account the curvature of the earth. If they had tried to base their plans on the flat maps they were using, it wouldn't have worked. They had to come up with new transformations to account for the earth being curved, but a map being flat. Because you can't display a globe on a flat map there. It has to be distorted in some in some way. If you followed the maps that they originally had, it would have meant that all the tunnels were off by quite a large amount and the engineering specifications were extremely tight and required you to take into account the curvature of the earth. And the fact that the London underground survey, the topographical surveys and mapping specifically mentions that the LSG the London survey grid is to minimize grid distortion caused by the Earth's curvature. And not just talking nonsense, it's not just a pretty story. It was something that the engineers actually had to physically take into account. And I think that's all we need. There is many other I'm actually this is part of a video that I am creating showing many different projects around the world. Engineering projects on a large scale that physically had to take the curvature of the earth into account. This is just one of 11 that I am covering in the video that I'm doing. And the fact that engineering specifications say that they had to do it. And if they didn't, it would have been wrong shows that the earth is curved. Otherwise, these things wouldn't have happened. That's the only evidence that I'm going to present today, but it's actual engineering and mathematical proof that the earth is curved at the amount we say and not flat. Thank you very much for that opening statement. We are going to kick it into open discussion. Before we do, as I mentioned, folks, modern day debate is a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion and politics. We hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you were from. And with that, we're going to jump into open conversation. If you happen to have questions, friends, feel free to submit them in the live chat. If you tag me with at modern day debate, that's one way to submit a question or super chats. Another option in which case we push it to the top of the list for the Q&A. So with that, thanks very much, gentlemen. The floor is all yours. OK, Howard, can I ask you a quick question? Just one of the first things that you brought up. Railguns fire in a straight line. This is a lie. This is not true. Railguns fire in an arc. And I've got engineering, I didn't use the railguns to show that. But yeah, but please don't don't make false accusations. I never said that it fires in a straight line. I said that it is. Now, I said that it locks in on a target over 100 miles away using an RF pencil beam, which is straight direct. When it shoots, it shoots in an arc. Yeah, but it looks at the target over 100 miles away with an RF pencil beam. It can see its target because it doesn't register any curvature. It doesn't look around curvature. So most railguns use GPS for targeting for things that are close in the sky. They wouldn't target things at sea level or on land with RF pencil beams. They use that for targets in the sky. So yeah, doing 100 miles is no problem if something's in the sky. They don't do that for things at land. They use GPS targeting. Again, I can present the engineering specifications for railguns to show this. For me, whenever a flatterford brings up the railgun argument, it's a lie. It's completely and utterly false because nothing about the design of a railgun shows that the earth is flat. In fact, it quite clearly shows the opposite because the operations of a railgun take into account gravity in the curvature of the earth when targeting things. Completely the opposite of what you guys say. So please, from all engineers and all military specialists, stop saying that. If you can show me a reproducible observation to support what you're saying, then maybe I would have said of course. No, no, you're the one who's being acclaimed. You would have to provide, you know, you would have to get me someone in the military to back up your claim. You are the one that has made the claim, therefore you have the burden of proof. All engineering specifications disagree with you. All manuals disagree with you. All physics disagree with you. Everyone that I've spoken to that's ever operated a railgun disagrees with you. You have made a very specific claim that it targets things at sea level 100 miles away with an RF pencil beam. Unless you can provide evidence of that claim, the claim is going to be dismissed. Okay, I'll find evidence. But like I say, evidence to support my claim is in the observations that we all saw in my video. Reproducible observations that we can make ourselves. We don't need to believe what. Hold on, please. We don't need to believe what someone tells us. I can see for myself, 20 miles away, streetlights at water level. So where's the 80 meters of curvature there, Craig? Where's the curvature? Well, they're not a water level, as even you have said, they're 15 to 20 meters above water level. So there's that. And also when you start saying about what was it, your 30 mile video of the Chicago skyline. Once you can tell me where the bottom of those buildings are, we can continue the discussion. What else was it said? Yeah, you said. Yeah, so all of your observations, right? This is what I've tried to say to you before. All the observations you do are at sea level, close to water. That is where there's going to be the most refraction. And just because it's clear doesn't mean there isn't refraction. If you're seeing something through the medium of our atmosphere, which is a variable density, it's going to be refracted. And when you can see the clearest, that just means that the lines of light are following the curvature of the earth more perfectly than being bent by variations in the density as it goes along. So until you can bring me an observation that is so far away that we shouldn't be able to see. And you can provide me the analysis of the refraction of that observation. Then none of your observations mean anything because when you ignore the variables in an observation or experiment, it kind of makes the entire observation or experiment invalid. Those variables are very important. The variable of the atmospheric conditions, the specific temperature and density through the entire thing that you're looking at. Unless you know that, then you can't say we're seeing too far. But with the knowledge that we actually have of refraction, with the experiments that have been done on refraction for centuries from the days of Isaac Newton, all the way up to Dr. Andrew Young, the current world's leading expert on refraction. All the experiments and knowledge of refraction that we have mean that we can actually model the atmospheric density and temperature and what it would do to the light. And it turns out that what we see actually matches the conditions of what's happening in the world. And like I said, until you can bring me an observation with a thorough analysis of the refraction happening according to the laws of physics and Snell's law, et cetera, then none of your observations mean anything. All of the observations that you've ever provided, you never provided any of these details that you're demanding now. So what do I do with my observations, Howard? Howard, one thing I hate to interrupt, but just because people want to be able to see you guys react to each other. Thank you very much. Yeah, sorry. Can I share my screen please James? I just want to make a point. If you're actually going to refer to what you're sharing. I'd like to, but yeah, let Craig talk a bit more. It's okay.  Well, the observations that I tend to present, what's something that I like to do with the observations that is move away from the point with the most refractive conditions. I don't do it. I don't have observations directly over water because it's very hard to know the conditions. Over water, directly over water at sea level, you can have massive variations all the time. So what you do to remove those variations, you move away from the surface. The observations that I like to present, like the one from Miles Davis, are more than 200 meters above the surface of the Earth, where you're going to have much, much less of the variations in the temperature, the density of the air as you're looking through to another point. So you can more closely say that that matches reality than observations that are closer to the ground over sea, where you're going to get massive, massive changes over a short distance to lapse rate. That doesn't happen as much when you're high up. So if I do an observation or if I cite an observation, I like to do it from high up. And when I do, it turns out that it matches or at least disproves the notion of the Earth being flat. First, you haven't done any observations of your own, have you? Be honest and tell everyone now. I've done plenty of observations. I just haven't recorded them because I didn't think I'd have to record every time that I see, because I didn't know that I'd be debating flatter first for my life. I'm not a flatter. It doesn't matter because it doesn't matter if I have done observations myself because that's not how this works. We don't have to do everything ourselves when we can have multiple observations from many other sources to cite and match the laws of physics. Now, me personally, I am physically disabled. It's very hard for me to get around.  Luckily, other people have done that for me. And if you doubt them, the owners will be on you to repeat them to disprove what has happened, not to just claim it's fake. Have you finished, Greg? Yeah, I did stop talking. That would usually indicate that I've finished. Right. Well, I'd like to make two points. My first point is that you haven't provided any observations of your own. You're sharing, please, you're dishing out secondary information. So you haven't verified what you're showing us. We're supposed to take your word and you're taking someone else's word. And like I clearly just say, Howard, please wait. Please wait. Thank you, James. Like I showed in my video, it's very easy to fake an observation when the altitude is higher because you've only got to lift the camera a little bit or lower the camera a tiny bit. And it can confuse things in the distance in comparison like I showed in my video. Can I dispute that? No, no, not until after I made my second point, please. That's OK. Yeah, but you spoke for ages. Let me just get my second point in before I forget it. OK. Right. My other point is that you're saying that my observations are no good because I haven't taken all of the temperatures and things. Yet my observations reproducible, like I keep telling everybody, you can come to Benidorm and you can see the streetlights of San Juan Alacanti, which is supposed to be 80 meters below the horizon or 78 meters below the horizon. We can see the streetlights every day, every night, and we can see the buildings from top to bottom every day, every night, unless there's a bit of fog or it's very cloudy or rainy. But when the conditions are clear, it's always a perfect eye level observation. So your light refraction experiments will show disfiguration, distortion and misplacements. You show me light refraction, show me bendy light that doesn't distort the observation. You can't because the whole idea of bendy light means it's bending. So things that are further away will bend less or more than things that are close and things on the side and depending where the light source is. All these things would affect the refraction of light, but they don't seem to when we're making these observations for ourselves. So all of the observations that we can make, like from Blackpool to the Isle of Man, from Denier to Ibiza, all of these observations that I've put in my video, they don't show much light refraction. They just show a clear observation that's reproducible, that pretty much discredits your claims that other people have calculated things in the military and they have to account for curvature. Okay, cool.  What was the first thing you were talking about? Right, raising the camera up eye level, changing things. No, it doesn't. I'd like to share my screen if possible. James, give me one sec to grab the pictures that I need. Oh, no, I don't even need to share my screen.  Were you not watching the video that I shared, Greg? I saw the video where the pole looked like it was higher than the horizon when the camera was lifted a few centimeters. Yeah, you can do that, but I mean, you know, you're completely... No, it wasn't refraction, mate. It wasn't refraction. It was the correlation between the height of the camera, the pole that was in the middle, and the horizon at the far. So just by lifting the camera a little bit or lowering the camera a little bit, it can alter what looks taller in the distance. Not like refraction, just a camera trick. Just going to quickly share my screen, James, if that's okay. Sure, ready. Right. Let me just put that onto mine as well. Right, so this is my good buddy, Tommy Grunveld, and he's testing this claim of moving the camera up and down, changing things. As you can see, he's got a camera looking along this board and it's got a water level on to show, as you can see in this picture, what the eye line is. And the center of the camera is matching both of these points, both of these water levels, meaning that you've got a tangent line, a line of sight, straight along there. And that's what it looks with the camera just looking straight along it. So the center of the camera matches both of those water levels that you can see there. All right. So what he does is instead of having it looking straight along, he points the camera up. And what you find is that even though the field of view and effort has changed, the actual eye line of the water level hasn't changed. So the two water levels still match each other, even though what would be the center of the camera has completely changed. To show it works the other way, there's him pointing the camera down and we get exactly the same thing. Even though the center of the frame has completely changed, the water level still matches exactly, meaning that it doesn't really matter what you're doing with the camera. As long as you have two reference points looking along, that is what you can base your line of sight on. So I disagree with your assertion, Harrod, completely. And this is my evidence as to why I would disagree with that assertion. Can I refute it? If you want, I'll share my screen again.  What was the next thing you said? Because you did go on a whole bunch. What was the second point that you made? There's lots of videos and reproducible observations. Oh, right. Yeah. So you've got videos and reproducible stuff. But when you see things far away, that is refraction happening without it being massively distorted. And again, refraction has been quantified for centuries. There are experts in the field, like Dr. Andrew Thomas Young, that you can literally email and ask him questions and he will tell you how to calculate the actual path of light based on what's happening. And until, Howard, you provide me with an observation that includes the analysis of the atmosphere that you are looking through to determine what refractive effects should be happening. I will dismiss any and all observations you bring unless you can provide evidence that the variables are as you say they are. These are your observations. The onus is on you to prove that they demonstrate what you say they demonstrate. And until you provide me with the analysis of the medium that you are looking through, you have not proven anything. And I refuse all of your observations as evidence. You can refuse what you want, mate. I'm just saying that everybody can see the same thing. We can all see too far on a clear day. We can all see way further than we're supposed to. We can see things that are supposed to happen. You say that light refraction says that can happen. Let me talk. Can you mute him for a second? I thought this was a back and forward. I can't lie over and over and over without having a chance to respond. It can be, but if we have too much interrupting, then they can't hear either of you because you're simultaneously talking. So it's that they wouldn't hear either of your reputations. So if we could do two minute segments. Let me just answer something. You want to talk about lies, yeah? Let's talk about your dishonesty. I showed in my video exactly that when you tilt the camera up and down, it makes no difference. You should pay a bit more attention to the evidence that's being presented to you, mate. I clearly showed that when you tilt the camera up or down, it doesn't change anything in relation to eye level. But when you lift the camera one or two centimetres, or when you lower the camera one or two centimetres, it makes a big difference. So tilting, no. But lifting and lowering, yes. Go and watch my video again and maybe you'll realise I've already addressed it. What's that got to do with this observation where the camera is at 210 metres? It only has to be one or two centimetres higher for those poles to appear. The camera is at 210 centimetres. It's not higher, it's not lower. It's 210 metres, not centimetres, sorry. 210 metres is not a couple of centimetres higher. It's not a couple of centimetres lower. It is at 210 centimetres, as is that pole in the distance. So you totally have blind faith in secondary information. No. You have to record it yourself and you're asking me to ignore all of the observations that I've provided. Can I ask as the moderator that you stop letting Howard apply the genetic fallacy to my arguments, please? He simply attacks the source instead of the argument and that's a really dishonest way to have arguments. It doesn't matter whether information is first or second hand. What matters is the information required. So James, please as the moderator, I'm going to ask you to stop Howard doing the genetic fallacy and saying it's not first-hand information because that's irrelevant to the debate. Is that okay? Craig, if you're being persuasive enough in explaining how he's being fallacious, you don't need my help. Okay, well I think I just did. Hold on, Craig, don't end up me. Let me speak, can I speak at ease? Apologies, apologies James. Great, thanks for working on your impulse control. It's important because it's fair, I want to let you speak the same way. If you're persuasive in terms of exposing his fallacies, you don't need my help. The fact that you think you need my help doesn't make you look confident. Well, no, it's more that it's just something that kind of shouldn't be allowed. But okay, I'll explain why it's fallacious. It's simple. Howard is applying the genetic fallacy. He is saying that because you haven't done it first, it's not your information. You're the one that hasn't gone out and got it. Therefore, the information is no good and it can't be trusted. But that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the data has come from. And Howard applying the genetic fallacy to everything that I say is just a way of him dismissing things that I say. Like in his opening statement, he simply said, I don't trust NASA. Well, there you go. That's the genetic fallacy. I now can't present anything from NASA because Howard doesn't trust it. But that's dishonest because that's ignoring the information in an argument and simply attacking the source. So Howard, every time you do that, every time you do that, I'm going to say, no, that's a genetic fallacy. Stop it. Okay. Can I say what's dishonest? You're asking me for all the atmospheric conditions over 20 and 30 miles. Can you provide the atmospheric conditions for your... No, sorry, for the observation that's not yours. Again, genetic fallacy. Please stop doing the genetic fallacy, Howard. I will ask you again. Howard, I will ask you again. Howard, I will ask you once more. I don't care how many times you ask me. We'd rather break it into two-minute segments if you guys are speaking over each other. Okay. So as I explained earlier, Howard, the reason that I, as I explained earlier, Howard, reason that I do not require the exact information of the temperature and pressure of the atmosphere is because I have moved away from the place where the distortions are the most in the observations that I present. The observations you present over water are the places that will have the most distortion. You have purposely chosen the places that will have the most distortion to try and show something that isn't factual. And because you have chosen the places with lots of distortion, you therefore need to supply the data of the temperature and barometric pressure. However, at the height of my observation at 210 meters, there is not going to be a variance of the atmosphere and pressure over that distance of that 210 meters. There is simply going to be a little bit of refraction, but not refraction that would account for, in this observation, those mountains being more than twice the distance below eye level than they would. Apart from the fact that perspective means this wouldn't happen, refraction would not make something drop like that because in general, refraction actually lifts things up as you can attest from the expert and Dr. Andrew Thomas Young. I can present all his details of atmospheric refraction. In general, it makes things lift up, not drop down. So there's the reasons why I would not have to present the atmospheric pressure and barometric pressure because I've moved away from the places that have those deviations.  Therefore, your observations are unreliable. Right. So number one, you've just admitted that there is some light refraction. It's just a matter of how much. Thank you. So there is light refraction in your image. So there could be optical illusions. And my other point is, you're trying to discredit the many observations that I have been providing and that I've provided today.  The funny thing is, Craig, are you finished, Craig? I was just agreeing with you. Sorry, I thought we were having a conversation. I was just agreeing with you. Please carry on. I'll try again. So my point is, it's not like you've got so many observations at water level that counter mine and we're arguing who's got the stronger evidence. No, you haven't got any evidence. You haven't provided.   You haven't provided any observations at water level. And if you do, they will be distorted where the ones I'm showing are not distorted. And if you don't mind, Craig, I'll just share this. This is the calculations by the mile. Just so everyone can see, I'm not pulling these figures out of thin air. Over 20 miles, there's supposed to be a drop of 266 feet. Over 30 miles, there's supposed to be 600 feet. So the observations that I've shown, one of them was 80 miles, which is 4,268 feet. Yet there's no sign of that curvature because we can see the whole island in that observation. So it's interesting that all of the observations that I provide haven't got any sign of major distortion. And you haven't provided any observations at water level because they're all weak. They're all blatantly distorted. I'm nearly finished. Yet you're asking me to provide all of this data of atmospheric conditions so that you can then try and justify that bendy light can just so happen to come at eye level without any distortion time after time after time. And in a layman term, I can make the observation in the morning, the afternoon or night. So it doesn't matter if the source of light, the sun is behind me, above me or in front of me. I get the same results. It doesn't matter what time of year or what time of day I do it. The light source and the temperature changes never affect my observation. But you want me to get someone to measure the atmosphere every mile. Well, guess what? That's probably not going to happen. So in that case, I dismiss your evidence because you haven't included all the variables. I'm talking about Howard. Howard, you've been going on for a while. I just wanted to end. Thank you. So if you're unable to provide all the details of the variables in places that would have lots and lots of variables, then I am unable to analyze your evidence. However, my evidence is a lot stronger for many, many reasons. And yes, I will call it my evidence because it's the evidence I am presenting regardless of where it came from. I've gone through this many times, but I'll quickly go through it now because this one observation is all we need. Number one, this observation is 210 meters above sea level. It is not directly at sea level over water where you get the most variations in temperature and pressure causing the most distortions and the most refraction. We've moved away from that. We're 210 meters above sea level. And we know we are because in the video that this is taken from, there's a marker next to him where he's set up the observation showing the exact height he's at. So we know exactly what height he's at. It's 210 meters. Not saying that it is, but even if it was a few centimeters even way, wouldn't change this particular observation in the way that Howard would like. It's not. Miles shows exactly how I is. Right. But the observation is this, the camera is at 210 meters. What we're looking at is the fourth road and rail bridges that middle tower according to the engineering specifications is also 210 meters above sea level. So we have a line of sight. We have a tangent. All right. You're seeing from the camera to the top of the tower that's 210 meters. So that line of sight is going to keep going. Yes, there's going to be refraction, but not as much anywhere near as much as when you're at the surface. Now, those mountains in the background, they are all 500 meters above sea level, yet they fall below the eyeliner 210 meters. As flatter first like to tell us perspective means that things rise up to the center and fall down to the center. They don't cross over train tracks. When you look at them in the distance, don't all of a sudden rise above eye level. That doesn't happen. So this can't be explained by perspective. Refraction works the other way to this. Refraction tends to lift things up due to a gradient in the atmosphere. Again, you can look at all the works about Dr. Andrew Thomas Young. He free to happy happy to answer any emails on refraction, but in general refraction lifts things up. So that wouldn't explain the mountains fall in more than half of their height below what is eye level in this picture. This one picture destroys the flat earth. And in the video, he turns 180 degrees and looks the other way and we get the same thing. Nice of Howard to start screen sharing whilst I'm still in the middle of what I'm talking about. So just to reiterate the reason I like to use these observations because we were moved away from the majority of the refractive effects. When you are directly over the sea, there will be the most variations because the water changes temperature, which changes the temperature of the air. Directly above it. So we cannot rely on observations directly at sea level because they will be distorted the most. I finished. Okay, so I'll just screen share quickly because most people would have seen this already. Okay, so pay attention this time Craig. Because the math says how much curve there's supposed to be yet the observations that we all make with lasers or just with line of sight. They kind of debunk the calculations here is my point here's my point you admitted that there will be like refraction even at that altitude. And maybe things wouldn't cross over but there is perspective and things do get compressed in the distance. So here we see that tilting doesn't affect the horizon in relation to the pole, but raising the camera just a few centimeters makes the pole look a lot shorter. Lowering the camera a few centimeters makes the pole look a lot taller. So, yeah, I think I've made my point. It's quite obvious that light refraction in distortion and sorry, light refraction. Yeah, wait you two minutes, light refraction will cause distortion and cause things to change shape, size and location. And also, little camera tricks can make a big difference. So your one photo that isn't really yours isn't stronger. Please I'm going to ask you again to stop applying the genetic fallacy. All right, we have to give each other. How are you got another 30 seconds and we got to wrap it up and give it to fight fire. Thanks. Thanks. So, so if I may my 30 seconds Craig, you have one image that's not yours. I have multiple videos. I don't care. Videos are stronger than photos. Primary observation is stronger than secondary information. I don't care. Will you wait your turn? And the point is that anyone can make these observations and it's always at eye level without distortion. It's only when there is distortion that things appear higher and lower and muddled up. That's my point. You're weak. Craig, I can't hear you. I just asked you to unmute. Sorry, I thought I was allowed to call him out when he said when he's doing a genetic fallacy. You have your chance right now. Well, okay, there was lots of genetic fallacies there. Everything he just keeps going up, not primary observation, not primary observation. Howard, that's completely irrelevant to the conversation. Stop bringing it up. It doesn't matter whose observation it is. It's completely irrelevant. Stop trying to change the argument into who did the observation because the doesn't matter. That's the genetic fallacy.  Right. In the observation that you just gave of the poll, what was the height of the camera and the height of the poll? Start my video. It's just a simple video that shows a tiny movement makes a massive difference. So you don't know the height of the video or the height of the poll? Alright, this would be a simple question to answer. What's the height of the horizon? The height of the observer? No, the height of the horizon would be sea level, wouldn't it, Howard? In this case, no. Yes, right. So that camera is already looking down, isn't it, Howard? It's not level at any point, isn't it, Howard? He was looking level ahead and he was seeing the horizon level ahead. Because the horizon is at sea level, it would not have been anywhere near the same height as those polls. So at no point was, if he was lining up with the horizon, there was no point where the camera was level with either thing. That's an assumption. No, it's not an assumption. Even on a flatter, he would have had to have been looking down to line it up with the horizon. That's not true, because no matter what altitude you go, the horizon's always eye level, like in the Red Bull skydive. That's incorrect. What you're talking about, what you're talking about? Well, how can I have a photo of the moon below eye level if the horizon rises to eye level? How would that be possible? Because the horizon doesn't rise to eye level, ever. Yes, it does. It doesn't. The horizon does not rise to eye level. It simply does. Look at the Red Bull skydive when he opens the door. Yeah, there's no cameras there at a level. So, right. Hold on one second. Look out. They can't hear you. Howard, I think if I remember right, this is fight the flatter time. So I want you to defer to fight the flatter. Thank you. So simply the horizon does not rise to eye level. This is just completely and utterly false. What I'm showing you right now is a camera recording eye level. And you can see the moon is below eye level. It has instruments on board the camera to tell you what is eye level based on its position. And the moon is below eye level. Unless the horizon is invisible and you can see through it to see the moon. This is 100% proof that the horizon does not rise to eye level. Please stop lying. It's not 100% proof. It's evidence that could suggest that the light refraction is causing the moon to look lower than it actually is. We don't even know what the moon is. I'm just saying that if anyone goes on an aeroplane, if anyone goes on an aeroplane, they can look out of both windows at the same time and see the horizon, no matter what altitude they're at. Or they can watch the Red Bull skydive when he opens the door of the capsule at 39 kilometers altitude. The horizon is right there, right there every time. And I have a question about that. Which camera in the Red Bull jump was set level to look at the horizon? Which one of the cameras was specifically set up for that? Well, the fact that all of the cameras... Let me give you a specific answer without you interrupting. All of the cameras take, whether GoPro, fisheye lens or not, they all show the horizon at eye level, whether the camera's outside or inside. And when the camera's inside, we can assume that it's level because when he goes and stands outside of the capsule, he's standing straight up, yeah? Because if the capsule wasn't level, he'd fall. And guess what? The horizon's directly in front of the camera. Again, eye level. So, you didn't answer the question, which one of the cameras was specifically set up to be level with the horizon? Could you just answer that for me? I did answer.  So, I'll tell you what, as you have no evidence for your claim, that claim's also going to be dismissed. Okay, well, you just missed what you want, pal. I'm going to miss any evidence that you can't back up, yeah. I'm not here to convince you, I'm here to convince your fans and people watching that they should look for them.  Why can't you let me talk? No, I've got to make you funny comments because you're weak arguments. Alright, let's go for two minutes or maybe a minute. What about the fact that big engineering projects take into account the curvature of the earth, Howard? Please explain that. Well, first, I'd like to finish saying what I was saying, which was that if people watch the Red Bull Skydive, they can see for themselves when he's opening the door and when he's standing outside, the cameras blatantly level and so is the capsule, but otherwise he wouldn't be standing up straight. And here's something I'd like you to look at. Can you see this, Craig? Sorry, what am I looking at? Is it sharing my screen? Oh, yeah, the project that they're planning, yeah. What about it? Yeah, do you think that they've accounted for curvature in a 75-mile-long building? Probably, yeah. Probably, so you're not sure of anything, are you? I haven't specifically looked into the engineering qualification, but, Howard, as you've just presented this for evidence, can you say for 100% that they have not taken into account the curvature of the earth in designing that? The fact is that you can't say they have. No, no, no, no. That was your bit of evidence you just presented. So please now provide a citation that says they have not taken into account the curvature of the earth while designing that 75-mile-long skyscraper. Can you do that? I've just provided a photo that looks like they haven't. Brilliant. Oh, you provided a photo that looks like the engineers, the architects, sorry, didn't take into account the curvature of the earth. And it's not even a photo, is it, Howard? It's just a picture because they haven't built it yet. Have they, Howard? No. So once you've got evidence that they are not going to take into account the curvature of the earth while designing that, then please present it. But in the meantime, how about responding to the evidence that I presented that shows they absolutely did... I'm talking, why are you screen-sharing? I was just putting up some evidence for when you finished talking. When I'm talking, don't screen-share. Thank you. Now, as I provided evidence in my opening statement that during the construction of the new 1990... In 1990, the London North lines on the London Underground that they had to take into account the curvature of the earth to design a new grid ordnance system to actually design the tunnels and build the tunnels, and they have cited it as the reason for creating the LSG. Could you please now explain how the earth isn't a sphere considering a large engineering project like the London Underground took into account the fact that the earth is a sphere when designing it? OK, so when designing something, they can calculate what curvature there should be and what curvature they should account for. Now, you can trust in figures on a piece of paper or on a screen, yeah? And you can trust that because they've published some information saying that they've accounted for curvature in this construction, and we're architects, you can trust us that that must be that we're on a globe. And we can ignore all of the observations, whether it's sea level or high altitude, because I keep forgetting to mention my friend Vika can see the Himalayan mountains when he's on an aeroplane above Dubai, and that's 4,000 kilometres away. Can you tell that? Well, it's in many of my videos on my YouTube channel, and it's been in many of my debates on James's modern-day presentations. So everyone's seen that you can see the Himalayan mountains 4,000 kilometres away when above Dubai. I can get the video up if I need to, but I'm not on my YouTube. It's clearly the Himalayan mountains, and I've used it in many debates, and Vika's on an aeroplane. You can't guarantee something you haven't even seen. I'd just like to find out that you've completely ignored the thing that I said and started talking about other things. Can you stop talking? What we're going to have to do is take a one-minute segment so it's strictly timed. Okay, I'll finish what I'm saying if I may. So you've got 60 seconds, and it's totally strict. Yeah, it's cool. So my point is you want me to ignore observations that I can make at water level. You want me to ignore observations that I can make when I'm on an aeroplane or on top of a mountain. I can still see too far. But you want me to trust in one image that you haven't even taken, and you want me to trust in literature that's either printed or on a screen that you haven't even... And even if you had calculated it, where's the evidence of curvature? I don't trust in your calculations only. I want to see observations that show landscape, partially or totally hidden behind the physical geometric horizon, curvature that you believe in, that you can calculate, that you can make camera tricks like I've shown. But I want to see a reproducible observation, and you've failed so far. I've shown lots of reproducible observations, actually, Howard, you just ignore them. And again, you once again committed the genetic fallacy, so well done. You can only argue in fallacious ways, it appears. That's absolutely fantastic. But I'm going to ask the question again because you completely ignored it. Please explain why the engineers, when they were designing the London Underground and digging the tunnels, had to take into account the curvature of the Earth. The LSG that was created, the map system that was created, was literally a distortion of the globe to a flat plane. It took into account the curvature of the Earth. The calculations are there, the map is there. It shows how they did it. It's in the engineering specifications. You just saying it's fake is not a rebuttal. I would like you to explain specifically why they took the curvature of the Earth into account without just going, I don't trust it because it's written down. They did it. It's there. The engineers said it happened. I don't care if you don't believe it. Explain how it happened. I don't care if you do believe it. I'm not going to take someone say so, even if it's published in a book or on a website, because if they were told to calculate for curvature, then they're going to calculate for curvature. Because like the space agencies, everybody's compartmentalised. So when people are told to do a job, they'll do it. And if it adds up, then it adds up. But if it can't be observed in nature, which it doesn't seem to be able to, thanks to all the many long distance observations that many people are taking all over the world. Hence why there's so many globe skeptics and we're growing by the day. If I've still got a few seconds, I'll just quickly ask, let's change the subject. Because we don't agree on curvature and we're not going to agree on curvature and you're scared. I'm not changing subject, not until you've answered my question. We're still in his 60 seconds. Is it my 60 seconds? Yeah, you got about 18 seconds left. Okay, so I'd like to talk about... I'm not changing subject. I confuse the subject. I can't stop him. I'm going to stop him then because I'm not talking about anything else until he has answered my question. I've answered your question just because someone's used to answer the question. I am not moving on. You give him a chance to speak during his time. That's fair. We give each of you 60 seconds. That's fair, Craig. We get the same amount of time on each side. So you have 16 seconds Howard. Okay, I have answered your question. I don't trust in what they're saying because they're compartmentalized. They've been given a job. They've done their job. That doesn't prove curvature. It just proves they can calculate curvature. Thank you, James. All right, and by the flat earth, you got 60 seconds as well. I'm not changing subject and I'm not letting him get away from this. I don't care that he doesn't trust it. It happened. It's in the engineer's specifications. It's what they did to physically build the London Underground and it wasn't just compartmentalized. The engineers got together and did that. They had to create a new system of transformation to be able to do it because the flat maps weren't accurate enough. They distorted it too much. They had to. They 100% had to take in to account the curvature of the earth to design the London Underground. Howard, why was that the case? I'm not moving on and so you tell me why it was the case. I'm not accepting. It's fake. I don't trust it.  Answer the question. I am not moving on and I will not answer any other questions until you have answered this question honestly instead of just saying it's fake and I don't trust it. I didn't say it was fake. I said that they were given a job. They've done their job. So what? In their job they took into account the curvature of the earth. Why did they do that? You're claiming that they physically had to account for curvature. But the only proof you have isn't physical. It's scriptural. Just like the Bible. You believe in what you've read or what you're told. I want physical evidence that there's curvature. Not so... The London Underground are physical evidence. Cool story bro. Yeah, I've said it. Cool story bro. Cool. Okay. So I don't care. I am not moving on with this until you answer the question properly. The London Underground take into account the curvature of the earth when it was being designed. Because they were told to. They actually did it. You can look at the transformations yourself if you don't believe it Howard. But it was done. It's a fact. I do not accept your complete denial. I want an answer to the question or this debate is not continuing. I don't accept your denial of the many observations that I've provided. Answer my question. I've answered your question. You've avoided the question. You've avoided the question. Let's see. We've got just a few more minutes left. This might be a good time for closing remarks and then we're going into the Q&A. If you have any closing remarks, I'll give each of you guys two minutes. Howard, the floor is all yours. Thank you. I'll try and do this as quick as I can. Can you mute yourself please Craig? It seems like Craig is scared to talk about other things because he's quite worried about what I'm saying. Can you see that James? Now I chose. I just want to lie about me Howard. That's cool. No worries. I had three points Craig. Three worldwide flood doesn't make sense on a globe. Long distance observations went on an aeroplane or at water level. You can't provide anything more than one piece of counter evidence that you didn't take. My main evidence is as I've got two minutes if you don't mind Craig when we're looking in the sky we can see constellations like Orion pretty much throughout the whole year about nine months just at a different time a night. If everyone pays attention to the video in summer we're looking one direction and in winter we're supposed to be looking another direction completely so not only can we see it for nine months but for those six months how is it possible that we're looking at Orion six months later we would expect to see completely different constellations and that we'd only see Orion for example at the very end of the night or the start of the night from a different angle across the same path in the sky but it does and so do all the other stars there's no parallax over a year there's no parallax over thousands of years as seen in the Aztec and Mayan calendars and the Egyptians have got the Dendora calendar carved in stone thousands of years ago see if it makes sense thanks James why can we see Orion looking in a completely different direction and why do we see Orion passing the same path in the sky as every other time of year it just doesn't make sense unless we're actually geocentric and the stars, sun and moon are actually evolving around us like the ancients said and like we see thank you James alright we're going to kick it over to fight the flat earth for two minutes okay he refused to answer the one question that he knows destroys him but I'd like to quickly respond to his Orion thing if I can first off you do see different constellations throughout the year there are some stars you literally can't see at times when you can see other ones but don't know why you think Orion is such an issue if I've got time I'm going to quickly bring up the screen because I've got a model that displays this completely for you alright give me one seconds alright now my solar system scope doesn't seem to be working so I won't be able to show you that right now but I have shown it before on my channel it's an app that shows where the stars are throughout the year and you can track where they are with the globe and solar system model and it shows that Orion is exactly visible as predicted by the globe model I don't know why Howard thinks it's an issue my challenge to Howard for that entire thing is for him to actually model it out and show us how it's impossible instead of just showing a little picture that doesn't really display what we see in reality if I had my thing working here I could show it I don't know why it's not but yeah final thought is that Howard's got nothing from observations that he purposely takes at the place with the most distortion claims using the genetic fallacy that's about it lies about the way that rail guns work not trusting NASA who cares if you don't trust NASA that's again the genetic fallacy just attacking the source the video you showed of the guy pulling the wire you can literally see in that video it's not a wire he's putting his finger and pulling him to the side because he tries to grab whatever's there and he simply hooks finger see for pocket or you see it go behind the material there's no wire the earth isn't flat there's measurements that show that the earth isn't flat you can in fact another one of the videos that I've got coming up I am doing experiment myself repeating my experiment I've done before measuring the earth's rotation anybody can measure themselves can measure the earth's rotation measurements of the curve exist there's so many observations that we can present where you can't see the bottoms of things which destroy with that gentlemen thank you very much for that open dialogue very invigorating I appreciate your guys' passion and thanks for your questions folks we are going to jump right into these our guests are linked in the description so if you'd like to hear more from our guests you certainly can those links are waiting down below right now in fact that includes at the podcast you can also find our guest links there in the description box too so with that jumping into it thanks so much for your question Dave Garre says let's see string fellow hawk says Howard you said that video of the pole wasn't yours so stop calling out fight the flat earth for the same thing namely using footage that isn't his fair enough but funny I know the person that made the video so I can inquire about the height of the pole and the height of his him when he's making the observation the best thing is it's such a simple observation it wasn't to convince people of that observation it's to show people how to make that observation themselves just lift your camera a little bit and then lower it a little bit and you'll see for yourself you got it this one coming in from do appreciate your question as well Samir Farsane says if earth is flat how can I take a flight east from New York to London then another east earn flight to Tokyo then a third flight east again back to New York well you really should look into the idea that the earth could be flat because they have some really simple explanations on the five and ten minute videos which would explain that if you're going around a centre point and the centre point is the north because the compass only recognises the north it doesn't recognise the south so it tells you where the north is you follow it east you get back to the same place you follow it west you come back to the same place there's never been a north to south circumnavigation or a south to north and back which is very strange and that could be because we're not allowed to go to the Antarctic to the north and pole but even before they put these rules in no billionaires have ever gone over in a hot air balloon or an aircraft never north to south and south again or south to north and yeah only round east or west bound so you got it this is coming in from appreciate your question Mr. Unite for the chill wind says the top five articles about the long building of the Earth's curvature in the first paragraph your own quote-unquote evidence provide proved you wrong Howard I didn't realise well they can account for things in calculations but just like Craig unless you can provide observations of this physical curvature it's all hearsay and calculations okay I'd like to respond the observation is the fact that London Underground actually exists and they built it the way that they said they did you know that's a physical observation it's there you can't debunk it all you can do is go I don't believe it and that's the weakest of the week Howard the weakest of the weakest of the week and yeah thank you for pointing out that they are taking into account the curvature of the Earth with the thing he presented that's brilliant yeah sorry well let's see why don't we just because I want to get more from Craig because most of these questions are all for could I just respond quickly to the thing he said to the last one that's right yeah he said there's never been north to south circle navigation there's been loads it's done all the time you know there's 24 hour live stream of it from the one more orbit team you've got the free yearly yacht race which literally circumnavigates south Antarctica Antarctica comes from France down past Africa goes around Antarctica and back up to France you know there's nothing stop when you go into Antarctica or not anyone can go there I don't know why people keep saying there's been no north to south circle navigations there's been loads there hasn't apart from the ones I just pointed out of course you know they went to the Antarctica traveled a little bit around it and then went back up that isn't crossing it or going all the way around it one more orbit went straight over Antarctica north to south around the whole thing around the entire world and the the yearly the free yearly yacht race like I said literally circumnavigates the entirety of Antarctica that's it it's done every three years you numpty have you done it Craig so you just genetic policy once again wonderful wow that's you can call it what you want but if you do it yourself I'm just looking for an observation of physical disprove you brilliant wonderful lovely it wouldn't disprove me it would just disprove it would disprove you completely 100% bendy water can you show me bendy water instead of giving me all these stories get your phobic surface and put some water on it see what happens so we don't miss any other questions something hunters says the flat earth or says quote your evidence is fraudulent then the round earth or says your evidence didn't take all the variables there is a big difference here I think that's addressing you Howard yeah it's it's easy to say something as fraudulent when it conflicts with something that you've observed yourself many times something that cameras will confirm video photo and everyone that makes observations whether it's with their eye or with a camera or telescope they get the same results we see too far there's never any landscape partially or totally hidden due to physical curvature it's either atmospheric conditions or perspective or angular resolution but we never see any clear loss of landscape due to curvature no distance no altitude this one coming in from do appreciate your question this one from philosopher king gaming says why does how we think that means you Howard trust all the the old dead people who say flat earth or earth with an app but literally can't address fight the flat earth's evidence without a fallacy that James won't call out I haven't been trusting anyone else's evidence I've been using other people's evidence to support evidence that I've made myself observations reproducible observations that I've made myself thanks to being influenced by other people on YouTube that have made them with their video cameras or their photo cameras so I've been inspired to verify things using the scientific method instead of preaching beliefs in other people's information I verified it Howard can I just ask you a quick question what's the scientific method if I remember right it's you make an observation make a hypothesis in fact Craig I don't want to be tested by your definitions it doesn't matter you said the scientific method I just like to know you know what it is yeah I do I do I don't really want to have to go into the definition I do know it you're not my boss I don't need five words if you can say five words then you know the scientific method go on I don't care how you yeah you don't know the scientific method I do I just don't give a shit about you I'm not here to give definitions anyone can go on Google I just started this one from Squatch Talk says Howard how does north south east and west work on a flat earth you can't walk north and south at the same time neither can you walk north and south at the same time on a globe I'm not sure if the question makes any sense gotcha this one coming in from do appreciate your question JM says what about the famous failed flat earth experiment all over the web would you like to hear howards or I would like to hear howards response about this sorry what was that about the James Webb just say the famous famous experiment there's lots of experiments that have either been made on purpose to look silly or there's people that are just trying to learn things as they go along there's lots of experiments of the globe that have failed but you know I'm not I'm not bothered about other people's experiments I'm bothered about what we can all observe and test for ourselves with the scientific method this one coming in I do I can give you a chance to respond if you want Craig yeah he doesn't know what the scientific method is otherwise he would have said instead of being a child and going I don't want to do it but it's cool this one because that he love let's see he look back it says Howard can you show us a measurement of the horizon at I level at any elevation above 100 meters can I show what sorry they said can you show us a measurement of the horizon at I level at any elevation above 100 meters I think I've already said that you can go in an aeroplane or in a hot air balloon and you'll see the horizons rising ascending with you or you can look at footage from the red bull skydive or hot air balloon and you'll see the horizons always at the level of the observance it's like a fact yeah thank you very much for your let me just wait to respond to that that's okay look at this horizon not rising to I level look at this horizon not rising to I level look at this the moon literally below I level meaning the horizon hasn't risen to I level even at 70 feet 70 feet there we go 70 feet the horizon does not rise to I level boom done can I just get a quick word in how do you know the horizon isn't to I level and that it is not please let me speak Craig you asked the question I was asking please let me speak Craig how do we know when it's not I level when there's could be clouds and compression distorting the horizon you know like you get this inferior mirage and Fatima Organa so we don't know where the horizon is so basically the horizon rises to I level when you want it to but when it doesn't rise to I level it's some kind of weird distortion basically it's what you said yourself that when at water level no you're the one that's just said that please don't interrupt me Craig I wait for you to finish speaking when we're making observations at water level there can be a lot more atmospheric conditions depending on the weather thank you very much like you said yourself so as we low down at 70 feet I'm not going to trust this because I've been in aeroplanes myself and I've even done a skydive and the horizon is always at I level even when up in an aeroplane really high up so your 70 foot observation which isn't your observation I don't care not buying it the observations in front of you you can see what I level is the horizon has not risen to I level therefore the horizon does not rise to I level that is just a lie no it's called an it's called an optical illusion I trust what I see myself over your two images does a sextant work what's the next question James just a quick question for you to do with the horizon rising to I level does a sextant work yes or no yeah and I've heard loads of people arguing that you need a flat level surface if the sextant works then the horizon doesn't rise to I level this one coming in from do appreciate it Lucas says Howard what are the stages of the scientific method just to show that you understand it okay as it's someone else asking I might not remember them in sequence but you've got to make an observation make a hypothesis and then you've got to test the hypothesis I might have missed something yeah because I haven't you don't know what the scientific method is I do Craig and then you just can you shut up hold on one second gentlemen hold on one second I do want to jump back to something we just want to jump back to something this is from Kevin who says the experiment so in regards to the question earlier Howard when they said what about the experiment that was failed by the flat earth or that was all over the internet they said the experiment is the one with a light two boards one mile apart with a hole you raise the light if you can see it there's no curve would you like me to play that yeah I've seen I'm not done reading you said there was a curve I know the one he means I have it on like if you would like it just asking you'd like me to play it for you I have it so that the audience knows the context oh do you mean the original question yeah the experiment that he's talking about is the one that gerenism did in the behind the the curved documentary so just if you'd want me to play it for the audience so they've got context is it a cartoon is it a cartoon of the experiment well one sec just to be sure so fight flat earth does it sound like you and Kevin from chat who described this are on the same page yeah he is talking about the gerenism board experiment from the behind the curve sure yeah let's do it for the sake of like it gives people a concrete way to look at it Howard so we'll give you a chance to respond Howard but yeah go ahead if you've got it let's see it being through this hole through the next hole and seeing the light at the backboard 17 feet off the water here at this flat if he's holding it up to 23 feet high and we're seeing the light well that's because it's curved so I should only be able to see it when it's at 17 feet okay go ahead and drive down there and Rike you're gonna hold the light there and Rike how high is your light I mean I you know well there's we don't see you and Rike lift up your lift up your light way above your head interesting yeah that's that one cool so so it's a cartoon first of all of an experiment and there is light refraction and many other reasons why the experiment might have not given the results they were expecting and just for my own defense I was gonna give the five points of the scientific method but you interrupted me before I could say the last two Craig because you're weak and that's what you rely on then you make conclusions and then you repeat and you get other people to repeat it Howard sorry what what are the last two then I've just said them can we move on please James I'm not you did three one and then you didn't do the other two I've just done the last two and I'm sick of being your circus monkey when did you do it I didn't hear you say them can you show a real experiment or just a cartoon of something that could be down to light refraction he showed him doing the experiment as well I don't see the experiment I see a cartoon of the experiment which could just justify the experiment as well I mean I don't know if you missed this part right here where he's doing the experiment right here where he's doing the experiment you know okay lift up your lift up your life yeah I see a camera and I see a guy that was the experiment it shows him cutting the boards here doing the cartoon Howard the other 30 odd seconds were of him physically doing the experiment what is wrong with you I'm not convinced that experiment was done brilliant and even if it was please don't interrupt me all the time even if it was done correctly it could just be showing the effects of light refraction as you keep using light refraction all the time when it suits you I use light refraction when it applies can you show any evidence of physical geometric horizon can you show any evidence of physical curvature yes I can there's a horizon evidence of their earth being curved because the horizon is literally an effect of the earth's curvature you're just showing light refraction all the time into this next one this one coming in from do appreciate yours Samir Farzane says the ISS orbits earth 16 times a day visible with a naked eye how can we see it come back from opposite of the direction that it went if the earth is not a globe well as I've said in many other presentations we don't know what the lights in the sky are they could be UFOs like shooting stars could be aircrafts could be multiple aircrafts they could be those satellites that are in high altitude that Google have paid for and many other companies have going around in high altitude not in outer space this one from Nia Sawol says fight the flat earth second hand evidence bad Howard's second hand evidence good fight the flat earth using camera is bad Howard using the camera good I'm such a naughty boy I think you're using a double standard is what they're getting at Howard I think Craig's using a double standard he doesn't have any atmospheric conditions for the observations that he's using from other people he uses light refraction he uses light refraction when it suits him but not when it suits me let's humor the question though is this Howard would you concede that you had used any sort of special pleading any sort of double standard no because I've verified as much of the secondary information that I've used as possible where Craig hasn't I've made primary observations to verify the secondary information that I used to support my arguments Craig hasn't made any primary observations he just uses definitions and fancy words to try and discredit me as a person because my evidence I've physically measured the earth's rotation of course which is a repeatable experiment done all the time but you know part from that of course what with a pendulum with a what with a pendulum with a what sorry with a pendulum what the fuck is a pendulum what were you called in them pendulum have you been saying it like your whole life well do you know what I like I've said I'm dyslexic that's nothing to do with dyslexia that's not knowing how to say a word see my point my point wasn't how to I'm also dyslexic dude you know that right can I just say something quick James my point wasn't how you pronounce pendulum yeah it was the fact that it could be measuring the sun moon and stars momentum how could it be measuring the sun moon and stars because there's forces pressure rate there's heat there's all sorts of forces like electromagnetism and many more that could be affecting as the path is always the same above us you haven't debunked nothing you just said yeah I have because I've done it with different materials meaning that electromagnetic forces would affect it differently yeah it doesn't amazing isn't it my fact my point is that a pendulum would give the same reading whatever shape the earth is because the sun and moon are spinning around those but you can claim there is no reason a pendulum would drift in a correlation to your latitude if the earth was flat and stationary yes there is the same reason why in the northern parts of the world the pendulum might go clockwise but the hurricanes go counterclockwise you can't explain that with you that's exactly the Coriolis forces being applied to the different things which could still apply if the earth wasn't a globe and it wasn't spinning but was everything else spinning around us no no no the Coriolis forces are specifically because the earth is a rotating sphere they could not be from anything else to the best of your knowledge no no according to physics no Craig because you haven't proven Earth's curvature so you're making a conclusion based on a curvature actually so that's cool as well this one coming out Brum do you appreciate your question Ilia Baca says how do you know if a camera is level to determine the horizon is there to set level it has to be perpendicular to vertical none of your examples are set for that since the camera shifts all of my videos inspire people to make their own observations I'm not asking anyone to believe me I'm just asking people to make their own observations and verify what I'm claiming for themselves with simple observations you got it thank you very much for this question coming in from Samir Farseen Preciate it says ISS website has exact schedule for viewing UFOs yeah just like the ancients could calculate when there was going to be eclipses and they didn't believe we were on a globe and they knew when there was going to be blood moons and all sorts of phenomena in the sky so when they can calculate if something is going to pass over they can put it on a website and say yeah it's us look it's us great cool story doesn't prove their curve completely false the ancients could not predict the exact time and place that eclipses or blood moons would happen they could guess roughly when it would be but they were not able to like you can with the heliocentric model predict to the exact millisecond and millimetre where the eclipses will appear they could but they didn't have the technology that we have in our hands were you there Craig were you there there's no evidence that they could they have things that predict it roughly that we can still see today but there's no evidence that they ever had anything that could predict it to the second you know if that's a claim you're making then please provide evidence I'm saying that they could calculate things you're the one that's making it about the millisecond sorry James yeah yeah because that's you know how you do it with the heliocentric model Professor Phil Bell says please ask Howard what does he think when he sees a starlink constellation moving 10 times faster than any known fighter jet and never needing fuel year after year solar panels gotcha and with that that's all the questions we have we want to say folks if you want to learn more about our guests you can find their links down in the description box we appreciate them they are also linked in the description box at the podcast as well if you're listening there so I want to say thank you Fight the Fight Earth and Howard it's been a true pleasure and thank you everybody else out there for your questions to make the Q&A possible I'll be back in just a moment with a post credit scene letting you know about upcoming debates so for example we are absolutely pumped about a juicy one coming up next month at the bottom right of your screen it's going to be a fun one as well as many more so one last thank you Fight the Fight Earth and Howard it's been a true pleasure thanks Jim stick around folks I'll be right back one last question from Sameer he says ISIS schedule UFO viewing every 16 minutes for years Howard yeah gotcha like the Antarctic treaties been going for 60 years like the world meteorological operations been going for 50 years spraying chemicals in the sky there's amazing things going on that we don't we're not aware of juicy to say the least I'll be back in just a moment stick around folks and thanks for hanging out with us be back in a moment gentlemen gentlemen thrilled to have you here want to say thanks so much for all of your support seriously let me just adjust these camera pictures here want to say thank you guys we are pumped about the future we appreciate your support and all the different ways that you give it if you enjoyed this debate and you're like you know what I like this I think that I have a friend who might like this as well if you share this debate that's actually the probably the biggest way for real that it helps the channel is if you have let's say a group like maybe a group of friends that you message and a group thread like a message thread on Twitter or Facebook discord whatever it is and you're like oh yeah I think they'd enjoy this like we talk about this sometimes please do share that helps a lot good old fashioned word of mouth we appreciate it you guys and that's a huge way I check the like the statistics and I have seen like we do have a ton of shares on our video so we appreciate that you guys really do actually do that and that share button is down below if you've never used it if you look at the share button below you can see that once you click on it it gives you the option where you can share via Twitter, Facebook or if you like what I like you just click on copy the link and you can just share the link itself and that way it's flexible you can just share it wherever you want it's super convenient you know it's great because I sharing it for example like I'll share it with friends over text messages sometimes we're like hey you might enjoy this one it was a juicy one and we appreciate that though for real it does mean a lot as well as Kevin thanks for being with us he's in the live chat says yo what was the name of the song that I just that was just playing sounded like a banger thanks Kevin for that feedback as well as heck yeah let me find this for you I think I've got it in the description box but it might be gone already yeah actually it's gone we like on accident it's no longer in there I cut it but it's called world goes wild and it's by above envy so like above envy like instead of being envious or bitter you're like you're above it so above envy so I really do appreciate you guys thanks for your support seriously there are all sorts of ways that you guys make this channel awesome one your questions for the Q&A we couldn't have a Q&A if it wasn't for your questions for real and dead serious like it needs questions that makes sense but the other thing is we do appreciate your guys support through the like button and so that helps a ton for real hitting the like button is a easy way just kind of like you want to do a good deed for the day I got to be honest to me it's like a good deed it feels that way to me and so if you're kind of like yeah sure I'll do a good deed for the day I actually appreciate everyone that we get we're at 159 right now so that's cool and I keep an eye on it so I know when every single person hits like but let me grab something really quick two seconds thanks for your patience I've got to tell you you guys we are pumped about a number of things one I don't know if you guys know this it is true if you have seen it like there's some articles that are out there I am pumped and the reason that I want to share about this badly so I happen to I don't know if you guys heard basically whew over the weekend actually it was Wednesday it was not over the weekend it was just Wednesday I actually heard about this competition or not competition as much as like this possible thing namely well let me before I tell you about this I want to say hello to you in chat first P.G.O. Hearn am I saying it right let me know good to see you there I see you there in the old live chat let's see James say Alden's number that's right Alden's number which nobody I don't know what the actual number is for Alden's number like is there like a beam number behind it too like it's not like 420 or 69 is it you guys you guys are perverts so let's see Andrew Kroll good to have you with us I see you there in the live chat as well as let's see Kevin and creature good to see you there Felix good to have you with us says good old fashion pancake earth juicy Felix as well as Mr. Anderson glad to have you here and yeah it gets lively in here sometimes I'm a little bit sassy with our guests I do want to say Craig has helped the channel immensely so even though Craig and I once in a while will have like a little bit of a spat like that Craig has helped the channel immensely so seriously I really do like Craig I like Howard as well and I know that I banned Howard last I've had some run-ins with Howard too they're both passionate guys because I last month I banned Howard I technically you could say suspended him and so I want to say that for all of my little kind of quote-unquote battles or you know like pushback with the speakers we really do appreciate them they are linked to the description and so I would say please don't hold a grudge against any of them is that I know I always take it as like water under the bridge like we you know we might say like you know you know we might press each other and you know you've been like I feel like a little insulting today I feel a little bad about that because I like Craig is that we you know it might be a little bit like push and shove but like I never take it personally and I never for me my personal philosophy is to never have any sort of like grudge or bitterness just not a way to live and so I would encourage you if you want to hear more about the positions of either of our guests Howard or Craig there in the description box it's always water under the bridge I like I really just do appreciate the speakers and so for me I've got to say I think it's a good way to live in life is just think of conflict as like acceptable and normal sometimes you know you disagree with somebody and just think of it as like it is what you make it it's however you interpret it it's however you decide to look at it if you just think of it as like it's not a big deal people disagree all the time then it's not you know doesn't have to be it's totally subjective it's funny that in academia in my experience they make some things subjective that they shouldn't and then many other things they don't emphasize how much we should make it subjective so for example like how you look at things in the world like how you interpret them for example like I let me think of examples in you know like I had COVID a week ago did you guys know that I had COVID yes I got COVID a second time I took an official test for it and I was down so I was resting hard but it actually you know it was like yeah that was rough but it was all there's a silver lining I needed some time off I've been studying my butt off it was good for me to rest a little bit and catch up on like watching some movies it was good for me you know so there is something good that came out of it so it's really what you think about it you could think of it as completely negative or you can see some positivity in almost any negative circumstance but Mike had good to see you I see there in the live chat says great to see you bro thanks Mike and Brooks Sparrow says eat fresh I couldn't agree more I am an ambassador not officially like the subway hasn't like hired me but I am a huge subway backer and I've got to show you guys something in a second some are summer sorry brother summer says what kind of debates get the most shares curious about the analytics I have noticed that it's usually just correlated with the views you know it makes sense it's like the law of large numbers the more people that view the debate so I would say if there's a debate with many many views those get the most shares so for example like destiny and Vosh debates like those get a lot of shares and then we have a ton of overlap with both destiny and Vosh's channels as examples we have like in the youtube analytics two seconds I like that is it has channels that overlap with modern day debate in the sense that it will say like modern day debate viewers also watch these channels and not surprisingly Vosh and Destiny's channels are both in there because they both love to debate but in terms of Obi Wan good to see you in the old live chat as well as reticulated spine and I'll tell you the story of a subway in a second and why Brooks Sparrow keeps saying eat fresh Ashy dog happy to have you says bring James Hake back Hake of the Hake Report we are gonna bring him back soon and Eureka Acura thanks for being with us I say there in the old live chat did someone just block them I don't want them to be blocked unless they were actually breaking terms of service so please don't block them mods I trust you mods I'm not trying to throw you under the bus when I say that I just want to be sure that in case there's like an old mod before we switch to the new system that went rogue or something global mom glad to have you with us Zach S. thanks for coming by says 69 LOL rock and woodworks thanks for being here Dave Hill pumped to have you Nate Swan glad you are here says what did Howard do last month it was like I have no like I don't hold it against it's in the past so I don't I don't even remember what it was but it was something where he tried to switch something at the beginning of the debate and I was like come on Howard like seriously and yeah basically the debate didn't happen because of it if I remember right but thanks for your kind words Zach as I appreciate that and then Nate John Taylor thanks for coming by as well as T bone thanks for coming by where have I heard that name T bone appreciate you're here being here rock in woodworks happy to have you as well as Dave Hill an absolute is an absolute death glad to have you here as well as Bruce six thanks for your support seriously we appreciate it man appreciate you telling encouraging people reminding people to hit like that really does help a lot for real Sadie Marie good to see you here having a little pre-workout before I go get jacked you guys it's time to do a shoulder workout hopefully by Monday I can do chest again I don't know because it can't bench press with oh that's right let me tell you so anyway this is a true story if you type in subway tattoo you guys aren't gonna believe this it looks almost like it's fake because it's so colorful there was a promotion last week and it was like hey if you come to Las Vegas you and actually let me put this in the live chat I've got to plug these guys because this is where I got my tattoo so it was like if you come and get a 12 by 12 tattoo you let's see let me put this right right here the awesome tattoo shop I mentioned in stream that is super kind to to newcomers and tattoo and like in Las Vegas you guys these are the most kind people ever I just put it in the old live chat or not the live chat the description box so if you refresh the page it'll show otherwise it won't show but basically here's the story YouTube was running or not YouTube subway I keep getting this confused subway was running a promotion I think subconsciously I want to work for subway because the fact that I just like the fact that I keep getting YouTube and subway mixed up and I kind of work for YouTube it's like my employer makes me think that I'm like do I like this like mean I want to work for subway because I keep for some reason I keep getting subway and YouTube mixed up because I'm kind of like loosely speaking employed by this YouTube technically it's like a general contractor and a relationship but anyway the point is this is a general contractor I can't remember the word but the point is this is that this was a subway deal where it was like you get the new tattoo for it's 12 by 12 inches basically if you get this 12 by 12 tattoo you get free subs for life no joke it's I'm not making this up it's not exaggeration it's $50,000 worth of gift cards and long story short I saw it and I was like man that would be amazing because I'm a huge subway person I love subway and I was like I've got to do this so you guys have to see this I did it I got the tattoo which is crazy it was amazing and I'm like super excited about it DJ Tambi who is like a world like one of the best in the world tattoo artist did the tattoo he's a honestly he's so he's like spectacular like he's won the Super Bowl ink masters for like tattoo people is like he's won it twice he's the only person that's ever won it twice but more importantly he's the most humble cool person ever and I've got to show you guys the tattoo so if you guys can you guys hit like we got 248 live viewers can we get to 200 likes before I take my shirt I'm not joking I'm going to take my shirt off I'm going to show you guys this tattoo if you want to see me unrobe and show you this tattoo hit like you guys come on you guys you can totally get to 200 it's possible is that long story short yeah I got a tattoo on my back you can't really see it that easily if my shirt's on so let me show you right now you can see it if I've got it if I've got a collared shirt you can't see it but if I've got a t-shirt on like right now you can so look at my neck like you can see it just barely at the bottom of my neck I don't know if you can see it can you let me know in chat can you see it like where it's sticking out there's a little bit of green and it's rounded so I can actually I'll look at the the monitor myself because it'll show me like what I look like is that we're at 182 likes come on we can totally get to 200 you guys it's not like I take my shirt off every stream but let me see it I'm looking at it oh you can barely see yeah so if I'm wearing a t-shirt you can barely see that I can see it right now so CRISPRCAS9 it says what do we have to do to keep this shirt on that's funny that's true if you don't want to see me take my shirt off it's probably not good like but let me hold on I'm going to get a spoon is that two seconds it's a it's a tattoo of the flat earth because I'm so committed just kidding if you are a flat earth or a globe earth or we hope you feel welcome I think you guys I hope you feel welcome the biggest thing is you want to have everybody feel like they're treated fairly like to get a fair shot and so whether you be a flat earth or whether you be you name it but Mike says what does free subway for life signify is it like one sandwich a day a week or I guess if you think about it it's kind of depends on how long you live if you do it like every other day let me look this up so I think I did the math if I get the subway foot long I usually get every single day it would last 20 years that's one foot long per day which I'm not going to do I just don't like like I love subway and I could do that but frankly it's just it kind of takes time to you know like sit in line and stuff like that so I like I don't think I'm going to do that but long story short is that let's say you went every other day well then obviously you'd last 40 years which is pretty easily the rest of my life if I live by the like roughly the median life expectancy where I could every single every other day I could go get subway and that would be cool so we're at a 192 likes you guys we can totally do this and you guys will not you guys some of you I'm pretty sure they're all men have asked me to take my shirt off more than once but I've got to show you this tattoo it is it is cool but thanks to your kind world Edson says your patience sometimes James it's out of this world I appreciate that seriously that means a lot and then NS Sherlock good to see you happy to have you Carlos Santana thank you for coming by says I would definitely brand myself for free subs but I'd be embarrassed to claim them oh man oh you don't have to show the tattoo at subway I they gave me gift cards so that's cool yeah but I give you mean like the funny thing is like only like less than 1% of the time people actually see me without my shirt off and the thing is I the story behind the tattoo it was honestly so crazy by the way I was I'm not joking guys I was on Yahoo Finance and Fox News not like local like national level with Jesse Waters Fox News and Yahoo Finance yesterday and the New York Post and today did articles on it so like it was like a big like way bigger of a deal than I thought I didn't think anybody was going to care I was like well maybe a couple new local news stations will show up but it's actually like a lot we're at 199 likes you guys Jackie and good to have you here says just came on here is a debate over yep and you're just in time for me to unroll sorry Jackie if you weren't hoping for that 200 likes amazing all right let me show you for real I'm not joking I took my shirt off and Fox News I that's just kind of edgy guy I am they asked me to though so let me show you for real it might be like what's the world looking for it might be it might it's like it might be a little bit like flaky because it's dry so here it is though can you see it amazing I know I'm dead serious this thing's for real so it is for real that is permanent that's not going anywhere you guys it is crazy I that's my first tattoo and it was 12 by 12 is 12 by 12 inches isn't a huge subway series 2022 is what it says in case it's hard to see that is 100% real and I am pumped about it I am excited isn't that crazy so yeah for real that is like no joke 100% real this will fund we can use this to help fund our modern day debate conferences which is really cool because we want to treat our guests to what is the world looking for to food you know when they're guests when they're speakers or debaters at our show and so that for me I'm like really pumped about that that's honestly probably the biggest reason I went is I was like hey this could help our modern day debate conferences so much because we could help treat our guests to food more easily because conferences are expensive for real so I'm pumped about that and then Obi-Wan says is it Hena or permanent it's 100% permanent like this thing is not going anywhere and I'm not and I wouldn't get rid of it either because my boy he's not really my boy I wish he was because we just met but I told him at the end of my time being there with him for a couple of days like on and off is DJ Tambi is like the tattoo artist who did it who's no joke I'm not exaggerating one of the best in the world he did the tattoo and he's the most like kind authentic person where I just am like man this guy is awesome so that's what I love is that you guys in fact I don't think we did a charity stream for this what was it I don't think we did a charity stream for Nikki says with your tats you can now move to Portland Mad Love James thank you for that support seriously is that yeah crazy that we got to 205 likes now now we're 212 so thank you for that let's see Jackie and says no worries I want to see the tattoo thanks for that and then Mike says holy crap yeah I know I think you guys what we're going to do is so the tattoo shop is plugged in the description box and I think what we're going to do is we have not I don't think we did a charity stream this month so what we're going to do is 100% of today's Super Chat funds are going to go to this shine the light organization the light organization shine the light Denver Colorado is that this is basically an organization where they're a non-profit and they're helping people who are what's the word I'm looking for oh it's itchy you're right Brooke it is actually like itchy my back is itchy Andrew Kroll thanks for your kind words and chat I appreciate it Rifa says oh my gosh you shill Dave Gar says lost all respect it's true I will pimp out my body for gift cards like nobody's business I will like like it's my job so John Taylor says sorry to say it but you're insane I am and not only that but I camped out for two days in the Las Vegas heat to get this tattoo so I am pumped I honestly I love this tattoo seriously I am really pumped about that is that it is it's the real deal there's no joke so I but let me tell you uh legic Natnax says is this the first tattoo you ever got yes it is it's the first ever no joke I'm not exaggerating and it was 12 by 12 inches it was basically a sphere a circle and 12 by 12 inches so 12 inches across and just gigantic and it was like I underestimated how painful it would be does the tattoo now make you the face or I mean that's funny thanks Brooke for your support says looks good James appreciate that seriously and angle of elevation glad to have you here I see they're in live chat point fire good to see you angle of elevation says did they pay you to get that they paid me $50,000 in subway gift cards I'm not joking I'm totally serious and the cool thing about that is we can use them for modern day debate for our conferences so I'm always trying to think of like how can we find new resources to make our conferences better for the viewers as well as for the speakers because we want we want everybody to have as good of a time as possible and this will definitely help with speakers we might even do a VIP thing maybe where like people can get subway like lunch with their favorite content creators at a conference we're thinking about that we want ideas if you got them Hillary's email says if it was Jared's face would you have still have done it absolutely not let's see Dave Hill says you've seen the South Park episode right Navy Subways in the market for a new buff spokesman no is that was that seriously like was there an episode about that that's funny Brooke Crazy says it gets crazy itchy yeah I felt it a little bit on and off the last couple days but now I'm like oh man like I'm starting to feel it more Dave R says the important thing is you you like it yeah I love it honestly the story behind it is what makes me love it like I actually do like subway no joke like I'm not I actually do go there a lot and they help me lose weight as a teenager no joke that's not an exaggeration so like I actually yet I'm pumped about the story behind it if you if you were there you'd understand it's hard to understand it's a lot for me to explain in terms of like what you know like what makes the story I just frankly I got to go pretty soon I got desperately have to use the restroom but I've got to tell you yeah it was honestly it was a blast and it was hilarious and no no joke I'm dead serious you guys like I was on Yahoo Finance yesterday like the show and then Fox News with Jesse Waters and so that made it kind of fun too and it was just like absolutely crazy in terms of like those things so those are pretty like wild and so let's let tornadoes as if it's gone in a week I'm unsubscribing oh yeah no I'm dead serious like it's not going to be gone a week it's permanent like there's no way this thing's going anywhere this is like the very like the most real tattoo you've ever seen like so yeah I'm pumped about that let me what was I going to do I forgot I'm like distracted now but thank you guys for hitting like 216 for a live getting into the hundreds is pretty good so I'm pumped about that you guys did you think I was joking like the tattoos for real like when you when you realized when I told you like hey I'll show you the tattoo if you hit like did some of you guys think I was like making that up and there's just like come on for real and you just hit like to see if I was serious and then Mike says can you start laser surgery to have it removed JK I like I said normally like if it was like a terrible trip I would maybe consider that or if like let's say I didn't get the subway food I'd be like you know if I didn't get the gift cards I'd be like what I'd be like you guys kind of duped me but like they kept their promise and subway people were really kind and the people from bad apple tattoo in Las Vegas are you in Las Vegas if you are in Las Vegas if you're in Las Vegas bad apple tattoo like has some of the kindest people and most talented people as well so I'm telling you for real they're awesome that neck says it's like you joined a Serino street gang that's funny I don't know what that means but it's funny and Brooke says what do they say about getting the touch ups done oh I didn't know about that like do people do that sometimes I'm okay with leaving it as is and it might not look perfect oh do you mean like every so often like how often do I have to do it I don't know I'm okay with just keeping it like even if it doesn't look like the most beautiful like and then Hillary's email says if I was Jared's face would you have gotten it no I already told you no you sicko and then later on it'll says make sure the gift cards don't expire too quickly gotta go to the bathroom so bad is that I will I will actually the funny thing too is I've got to use the gift cards in a decent amount of time I can't let them like drag on for the rest of my life because they'll lose a lot of value due to inflation so no joke like I plan on using them in either 10 or 20 years because I don't want them to lose value but I gotta so bad seriously so thank you guys seriously we appreciate all of your support seriously thanks for all of your support of modern-day debate we're excited about the future thanks for letting me share that personal story and like I said we will donate all of today's super chats to shine the light which is a nonprofit in the Las Vegas area that focuses on helping people that are in need so by that I mean in poverty so we are going to donate 100% of today's super chats to that cause I don't think we did a charity stream for July I think we're a little bit behind so we'll at least get it in for today but yeah thanks guys for your support I appreciate you guys I love you guys thanks for your support and I will see you at the next one which by the way we're gonna have a big one politically this coming Monday we're gonna have such a big panel it will knock your socks off so keep an eye on the channel that's gonna pop up today as an upcoming event and you'll see it but thank you guys I love you guys keep submitting all the reasonable from the unreasonable and I'll see you next time