Hey everybody, that's just a little snippet of the new intro song that I've been working on for modern day debate. A little bit of improv going on there and some juicy notes and some bad ones there. But onwards with the debate tonight, Flat Earth versus Glow, we have Austin, Whitsa Gitsit, and we have Malachi. Malachi is going to open us up for tonight, so Malachi, the floor is all yours. Great, thank you. I've got to say first, I always enjoy live music, so thanks for that. Oh, problem, thank you. I think it sounded pretty good. You should probably record it with different equipment, just me, but it sounded great, so. Okay, I'm just going to start with a little intro, kind of an opening. I wrote it down, so pardon me for reading what I wrote, but whatever. Okay, so I'm not really here to, like, try to present some overwhelming evidence that the Earth is a sphere, but I'm going to go through a few pieces. So our planet's spherical nature has been thoroughly studied and observed and proven over time, time and again, by countless scientists, countless scientists, explorers, and even ordinary people. So let's explore a little bit of the evidence. First and foremost, let us consider the observations of our early explorers, Ferdinand Magellan. Him and his crew embarked on their famous circumnavigation voyage in the 16th century. They sailed westward, ultimately returning to their starting point. And this monumental achievement clearly demonstrates that the Earth is not flat, but a curved surface. If it were flat, Magellan and his crew would have fallen off. If you ever have the opportunity to travel long distances, whether it be across continents or vast bodies of water, you'll notice an intriguing phenomenon that the disappearance of ships over the horizon. This is probably something that people have talked a lot about. As a ship sail away from the shore, it gradually disappears from the view. Only the mass really remains visible. Sometimes if you're on a ship sailing away, I was in the Navy for a long time. I've seen this quite a few times. The occurrence is consistent with the curvature of the Earth. And if the Earth were flat, the entire ship would remain visible regardless of the distance. The gradual disappearance of ships is direct visual evidence that we live on a spherical planet. Another compelling piece of evidence comes from the study of gravity. Gravity, as we know, force attracts objects towards the center of the mass. It acts uniformly in all directions, creating a balanced distribution of mass on a sphere, which is why you weigh roughly the same, absolutely everywhere on the planet. Although there are some slight variations that could go like in the higher altitudes, but that actually tracks with how gravity has been modeled to operate. So, yeah, consistent nature of the Earth means you get gravity all over the place. Lunar eclipses is a clear indication that the Earth is a sphere. During the lunar eclipse, the Earth comes between the Sun and the Moon, casting its shadow on the Moon's surface. The shadow is always round, regardless of the orientation of the Moon or the position of the observer. The only explanation for this is a consistent round shadow. Of this consistent round shadow is that the Earth itself must be spherical. There's also photographic evidence, lots of stuff from space. You can see the curvature of the Earth, curvature of other planets. It seems strange to say that the Earth is flat, but the other planets are not. Those images all come coalesce to reveal a beautiful blue sphere with recognizable continents, oceans, and cloud formation. These visuals confirm what centuries of scientific exploration and observation have already proven. The Earth is a sphere, and that's kind of the end of what I wrote, although it changed a little bit because I don't want to be boring to myself. On a second note, rather than having like a strict, hard debate, I'm not really sure you're going to get that from me. What you're going to get is a launch of inquiry into the understanding of this perspective. I find it pretty intriguing, and I hope that this is a pretty relaxed and productive debate so that people can understand each other a little bit better. So, thank you. All right, thank you so much for that, Malachi. We'll kick it over to you, Austin, for your up to 10-minute opening. Thank you so much for being here. Thanks for having me. All right, I'm going to try to breeze through this presentation. I'm going to start my timer. All right, so Flat Earth 101. So, let's cover some basics of debate that oftentimes get left out of this conversation. Falsification is independent of replacement. Example, you think you have biological parents. They actually adopted you. You find the evidence you were adopted. They don't become your real parents until you find out who your real parents are. You falsified that they were biological parents until you find out who they really are. So, falsification is independent of replacement. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, and the shifting the burden of proof is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made, which is very important in this discussion. For example, if you tell me that dinosaurs and rockets go to space and unicorns exist, and you say, I read it in a book, you're making a positive claim. You say, look, I have a picture of a unicorn that doesn't mean that unicorns exist. Unicorn pictures and books don't prove anything. But if you make the positive claim, you have the burden of proof. Oftentimes what happens is Flat Earth is straw manned with incredibly egregious and inept representations of the actual position. This is called a straw man fallacy.  Attacking a misrepresentation of the other person's argument, which was alluded to in this opener. Another fallacy I hope to avoid is an ad hominem fallacy attacking the person instead of the argument. Like flat others just don't understand basic science. Credentials fallacy pops up a lot saying, well, your argument can be dismissed because the person asserting the argument doesn't have the proper credentials to make that argument. That's called credentials fallacy. The appeal to majority an example would be every 7 billion people believe the earth's a ball, but you think you're right. It's an argument for an unproved conclusion based on the beliefs of a large group of people, which is fallacious. Appealing to the authority of whoever it is that makes the claim is also, of course, a fallacy. All scientists agree. Another one that we get a lot of is poisoning the well using ad hominem attacks to preemptively discredit the opponent. This is obviously fallacious and admissible and intellectual forum. All flat earthers are science denying religious conspiracy theorists as an example. We also have to beg in the question fallacy. One of the most popular fallacies in this discussion hands down every single evidence I've ever been provided for the earth being a sphere is something that begs the question that the earth's a sphere. Every single one of them five, six years into this, I've yet to be given one piece of empirical evidence that supports the globe earth void of fallacious reasoning. I honestly don't think it exists at this point. But here's an example. The globe model says the sun goes beneath the earth. So sunsets prove the earth's a glow. All right. So also shifting the burden of proof, which we covered earlier. Say you show me a picture like he alluded to of the earth being a ball from space and I say pictures can be faked. I don't buy that or replicated clouds all over the place supposed to be a live image every 10 minutes or less. It takes 40 minutes for them to give it to us. I don't believe it. And then you say prove the images from space are not real prove they're fake. You're shifting the burden on the person denying or challenging the positive assertion that that's a picture from a vacuum of the earth being a ball. Okay. To get into this argument, everyone was taught the earth's a ball from a young age just like these children here being indoctrinated with a pseudo scientific globe. This is why everyone here that believes the earth's a globe believes it. And if anyone's going to be honest, that is why people believe the earth's a globe. That's why of course all flat earthers once believed the earth was a globe. You were taught that you were told to make a model of the solar system. Everyone assumes it. Everyone assumes scientists have done it for them. They believe stories like someone navigated improved it and they're afraid to go against the majority. They simply blindly believe what they were ties a child. Therefore that is the majority positive claim here as we were all told the earth is a ball from a young age. So what does the globe earth claim makes three predominant claims. Number one is that it's a sphere with a radius of 3,959 miles. Which of course has the burden approved to substantiate that the earth is convexly at a rate consistent with that radius value. Claim number two that the earth is spinning over a thousand miles per hour at the equator while revolving around the sun 66,600 miles per hour on an axial tilt of 66.6 degrees. This is a very specific positive claim. No one here has ever felt the earth spinning nor is there any empirical measurement for it. And the current model actually says everything happens on the earth as if it is at rest to quote Einstein. So we need actual evidence of that claim. And number three, the earth's in a vacuum of space. You would have to support the fact that that's even scientifically possible to have a gas pressure system sitting next to a vacuum. Just saying that's what it claims is the case isn't substantial. The heliocentric model has the burden approved for these positive claims. And believe it or not, this is a cartoon. This actually is not real, which is pretty much all we ever get from space. Artunes for adults. So weight isn't saying the earth is flat a positive claim. Of course it is. So it is a positive claim. And I know a lot of people are already freaking out in the chats while I'm not reading it. He thinks he doesn't have to provide positive evidence for the flat earth. Now, despite me about to do this for the remaining four minutes, people will still say no evidence was provided for flat earth. But that is cognitive dissonance. So flat is the description of a surface flat is not a shape. We have the burden of proof to show that the surface of the earth is flat, specifically a topographical plane. Flat to description, you can have a flat square triangle circle flat's not a shape to say that you're saying the shape of the earth is flat. Really lack specificity and is insane as it is that I had to put that slide in there. I definitely did. Okay, so we have the burden of proof to show that the surface of the earth is flat. And this has been done to check it out radio waves can be sent over 10,000 miles with no earth curvature obstruction. And this was first done. They said, Oh, it bounced off the ionosphere. That's why it wouldn't pass the curvature of the earth. They claim that nothing over 40 megahertz can go through the ionosphere. World record radio propagation shows that megahertz frequencies up to 106 megahertz can go over 2700 miles. That should be blocked by the curvature of the earth around 200 miles against the ionosphere because to have a frequency debunks the globe shows the surface has to be flat to propagate horizontally. Magnet declination is required to correct for the inaccuracy of the symmetrical spherical assumption when navigating the typo. As you can see in the south, it's not symmetrical to the north, which makes no sense on the sphere until you understand that the south is much bigger on the plain earth and they have to do this to account for the discrepancies. Well documented by the world's governments as they initially explored in expeditions out south. All right. So here's some examples. They found themselves off 12 to 16 miles by observation every day. They were off 58 miles in two days. This is the United States exploring expeditions also off 20 miles in less than 18 hours when they went south. It didn't work. That's actually evidence. The assumption of the sphere is incorrect. Here's a military document for ground weapons systems called propagation of our electromagnetic fields are love electromagnetic fields over flat earth.  So this literally doesn't work unless you assume the waves are being propagated out horizontally on a plane. So of course when it comes to actually having to get the bad guy, the military knows they have to assume the earth is flat. Same here for the computationally efficient algorithms for estimating the angle of arrival rival of helicopters and even accurately land using acoustic rays unless you assume the earth is flat. Same for the derivation and definition of a linear aircraft model. People say they do this just to make the math simpler. Well, that's weird if the earth's a tilted wobbling spinning ball. Why don't we just account for what it actually is. I thought that scientists knew all about the math and that's what proves the globe. Another evidence for flat earth is something called specular reflection. As you see here, you have a complete specular reflection from this mountain on this water. This water must be flat to do that. Any concavity or convexity to the surface of the water would have a distorted image. It's impossible to have a specular reflection on a body of water that has any convexity. So here's an example of just a little bit of disturbance in the water showing you that of course you do not get a specular reflection unless the water is calm and flat. You see these all over the earth over huge stretches, miles and miles of water. Here's an example or here's a brain broken down for you. You have a diffused reflection whenever the water is not calm and flat. In order to have the actual reflection bounce back up to the observer, it has to be flat. We have these over vast distances all over the earth. The horizon has been seen over 10 times beyond the geometric limitations of the globe, requiring the radius value be over a quarter million miles, a little different than 4,000. This is a 6,600 miles away. The mountain should have been obstructed by 40 miles. So the entire globe model depends on the accuracy of the claimed radius value, everything, gravity, day and night, everything. The radius value has been falsified. Welcome to flat earth. So there you go. There's the positive. This is not real. This is a cartoon and it is okay. We all once thought it was real. So hope we can have a respectful conversation. Leave out the fallacies. Get to the evidence and get to the bottom of it. Thank you. Alrighty. Thank you so much there. What's it gets it for your introduction and your introductory statement there? Just going to remind everybody in the live chat that we are going to be doing a Q&A at the end of this conversation here. So get your questions in the live chat. I can see a few of them already popping in there now as we will be doing that Q&A at the end. So we're going to kick it into an open discussion between our two sides here. We'll kick it over to Malachi to open this up. Thank you Malachi for being here and floor is all yours. Okay. What's going on? Yeah. Not a lot. Kind of have a big thunderstorm rolling through. So if I lose power on internet then you win. Yeah. So lots of interesting claims there. I guess the problem I'm really having with your slideshow is that it doesn't actually argue for a flat earth. What you're doing is your, and I see this a lot. So don't think this is unique, but like what you're doing is you're going through and you're looking at things that are like, huh, that's funny. And you are assuming that that's somehow evidence for your point of view. But that's the problem is that it's not. So if you go through and you say, huh, that's an interesting little phenomenon that we're observing. And that really requires some more investigation. Like that's, that would be fine. But that's not what you're doing. You're going through and you're looking at phenomenon that is interesting. You brought up an army thing from magnetic wave traveling over flat earth.  And it's like, I guess the main problem I'm having is like, I didn't actually hear an argument for flat earth. I heard, I heard, huh, there are interesting things going on. We should probably investigate that more. And I agree. We should investigate these things more and really figure them out. Yeah. So those were specific pieces of evidence for flat earth, right? So if I send out radio waves horizontally and they go 2,700 miles, but the curvature of a globe should block them at 200 miles. The fact that they go out horizontally, 2,700 miles only works over a plane. That specific physical empirical evidence that the surface that the radio waves propagated over is a plane, that there's no physical obstruction. That is specifically positive evidence of a flatter. So no, it's not. That is, that is evidence that there is something interesting going on there that requires further investigation. You haven't actually shown any sort of model of a flat earth that would answer that question. Yeah. It's the flat earth answers that question. So you said no begging the question. And you seem to be doing that. I'm not begging the question. Yeah, you are. You're saying, you're saying this works if we have a flat earth and we have a flat earth. So it works. That's begging the question. You need to actually show like a comprehensive model along with a bunch of different pieces of evidence that show this flat earth thing. I mean, you know, looking into the flat earth folks, I've realized that basically none of them have actually the same model. They all claim different things. Some people think it's a we're on a disk that's traveling through space. Upwards at like, you know, the rate of the rate of gravity like the acceleration of gravity. Some people think it's like infinite going every, well, I'm not saying you do. I'm saying that these are the sorts of arguments that I found while I was looking at this. No one in the flat earth world. That joke seems to have like the same model and the same explanations for things. They all just sort of look at these sorts of issues and say, this is an interesting phenomenon. And then they use it to try to build their own worldview. But that's not, that's not really how that works. You need, you need to have a consistent large body of evidence that goes directly towards this flat earth thing and cannot be described on a spherical earth model. Yeah. You should apply the same standards to your position. This is what always happens. There's a blatant double standard here. But for one, we need to define a few things like when you say a flat earth model, there is no such thing as an earth model. There's no such thing as a globe model. We model different phenomena. So we have a geoid model. That's for sea level on a presupposed globe. We have a dynamo model. The geodynamo model explains the core. The geomagnetic model, which explains the magnetic field on the globe. So we model out different phenomena. So I can show you a Frisbee, which you brought up east to west circle navigation and said that that proved the surface of the earth was curved. And if it weren't, then they would fall off. Of course, I can give you a Frisbee, put a magnet in the middle, use a compass, go around it. Going east to west, you're going to come back in a circle to where you started around the center. That's a circle navigation model for a flat earth. So it's a talking point. I'm sorry. Are you talking about like Magellan and his famous voyage around the world? Yeah. East to west circle navigation is perfectly fine on a flat earth. How is that? How does that work? So if you use a compass and it points to north, which is in the center, as you begin to go east or west, you're going to update relative to north in a giant circle around the center. Yeah, they use compass plus star charts and they mapped all the land that they were passing as they went. I mean, this isn't some trickery of using a compass. This is like flat earth 101, bro. East to west circle navigation works exactly the same on a flat earth. The only one that would debunk flat earth would be north to south circle navigation around the entire ball. Because if you can do both east and west and north to south, that would prove it's a ball. And of course, north to south circle navigation has never been done in the history of man, and it's illegal to even try to do that, which is pretty convenient. It also sounds incredibly useless. I mean, like I'm in North America, all of our satellites are in the southern, like the southern sky. Right. Why would you send a satellite to go north to south? That doesn't make any sense. So why would we send a satellite to look at the poles of the earth? Yeah, I mean, so I'm curious. I'm curious about some other stuff, right? Like what are your thoughts on NASA? I don't blindly believe government agencies that were founded by Nazis. Right, right. That's a huge claim that I hear a lot. So this is fascinating for me too, because it's like there's now we're now we're introducing conspiratorial thinking, right? Now we're looking at like, oh, so this guy, you know, you think you're talking about the scientist that was smuggled out of Germany, forgot his name. Von Braun. There's a lot of them, but Von Braun was in charge of space exploration. Yeah, yeah, you probably also think that it was very interesting what they put on the on the gravestone of Von Braun. That's the passage from the Bible. I mean, like this is hilarious. No, it's not. It's not. It's not that interesting when you read the passage of the Bible and you realize that we're using technology just to basically go to the heavens. But if you can read Hebrew, then it's interesting. If you change what the words mean, I guess it's not interesting. I can't. And I doubt that German, like this is German scientist read Hebrew either. But so I think this is interesting because it just shows like this is this highly conspiratorial thinking where you don't trust.  Like, do you think that the Freemason started? I covered this in my presentation. This is called poisoning the well, right? So I'm asking you questions. If you don't want to answer them because it makes you kind of crazy. That's fine. Just tell me you don't want to answer them. Don't project so much minutes. It's weird. So I'm not projecting. I'm launching. I'm trying to investigate your worldview because I'm trying to see how someone could get from like this really like simple and incredibly well known fact about the earth and start to degrade their own their own confidence in it and start to present these completely different models. So I know way more. I think we both know the problem. I know photos. Yeah, but you got to stop scatter gunner. So like, yeah, sorry. It's all good. But so for one, you asked me, what do I think about NASA? And I said, I don't blindly believe government agencies.  That's a textbook poisoning the well. But that's why I'm confused. Do you blindly believe federal government agencies? Do you not think that federal government agencies lie to us? The most part. No, I think that if you think that government agencies are lying to you in large, I think you don't understand the process of discovering what like two things are. You don't understand the scientific method. Wow. Okay. Yeah, I know the scientific method very well. And I would show that you don't know what it is. But we got to stick on subjects here. So like, look, government lies. Sometimes. Yeah. And I think that there's some useful reasons for the government to lie to its population. I think that that's sometimes like, Like what like starting starting a war like the Vietnam War where they lied to the mayor public blew up their own ship and said Vietnam attack us to justify us going to war and murdering children. Was that a good one? Or when they when they literally admitted to brainwashing the public with the unsuspecting college students being part of MK ultra or whenever they said they took over the government or the government took over the mainstream media and operation Mockingbird to brainwash the public. Which one of those were good for the public? So I don't think those were very good for the public. No, I didn't say that they were. And I said that sometimes it's it's fine. Right. But a lot of the times I think the government does a fairly good job at doling out useful information. I mean, like a lot of the COVID stuff that was pretty useful. You could go to the. It was absolutely terrible and egregious abuse of freedom. So what I want to know though is like, you understand my position is not that everything the government says a lot. Obviously that's not my right. Right. So you're choosing a very specific portion of the government that seems to just do a lot of really good and useful work. And you're somehow painting them as being like bad and lying and stuff like that because it doesn't match your your model because their science their evidence doesn't match what you have already convinced. You won't provide any science or evidence in this entire debate. You'll just keep saying the words. But I just don't trust government agencies blindly, which means that appealing to NASA is not sufficient evidence. The reason I don't believe in NASA is I've actually caught them lying. So whenever astronauts disappear from frame on the ISS and their hands go through microphones, I don't believe it's impossible that they're showing me fake images. I've seen dozens of hours of fake footage from the ISS. So I don't believe in NASA who use clone tools on their cloud images. So I don't need to believe in that. We should be able to easily verify it on the earth. Why would I believe in a government agency? I've caught lying multiple times. The truth is you probably never looked at the footage that they've messed up on using VR and harnesses and you can see it. So why would I believe that? I don't. That's weird to me. Like it's weird to believe in the government who admits their objective is to control what the public think for national security purposes. Oh, all right. That was the fastest flashback ever, bro. It looks like something happened there. He might have crashed out there. I know that he had some thunderstorms. He was saying we're happening where he's at. So we'll wait for Malachi to come back. This happened last night. We had Kyle had an issue and dropped out, but he was back within like 15 seconds or 30 seconds. So we'll just hang tight for a few and see what's going on. But in the meantime, yeah, he gets to riff it. Oh, that's what's up. I hate to do this because it's not here, but I typed down some of the stuff he said. Circumnavigation east to west. We covered that. I think everyone here knows, right? Like if I have compass in the middle, then this is my compass is pointing north. I will go east to west around that, updating to the north as I go around. That doesn't prove there's a club. Boats going over the curvature of the earth. Well, you can easily bring the boats back. They disappear at different distances every day, different times of the day. You can use infrared and bring the bottom of the boat back. That shows it's not some physical curvature. That's not the same distance that boats disappear behind. So that's not actual evidence of the earth being a ball either. Gravity is not even agreed upon at the highest levels of academia, nor is it defined, nor does it work on the cosmological scale. It's off by 96% nor does it work on the quantum scale. It doesn't even entirely work on the local scale. So gravity is not even defined to this day. So that's definitely not evidence of the earth being a ball. I mentioned drop rates in weight changing with altitude. Yeah, you're within an electromagnetic field. You have an electric current going down to the earth. You have different mediums with different levels of density. That's different electrostatic induction. Many things play a role in that and it barely changes and never matches the globe earth's prediction. Curvature of other planets. So of course to say, why are the other planets round? Assumes the earth is a planet that's round, which is a backing the question. And one thing I've never got an answer to about that is like, you realize that the flat earth position is that the earth is a stationary topographical plane, which means it's in the center of the entire universe. It's in the center of the cosmos. So if the earth is in the center of every, meaning that everything moves around it, it's special and unique. Why would it be like everything else that goes around it? I don't get it. Let me make sure that everything's set up one second. Yeah.  So storms come through and my power gets knocked out. Well, that's an interesting topic. I guess we could launch into the kind of steer this back. For both of you, let's talk about the weather on our views there. So how is the weather as far as you guys concerned? How does that work? Does the weather work? That's a great question. Yeah. I mean, like I again, so spherical earth, you can go and look in a high school textbook and find out how the weather works. I'll disagree with that. I'm interested in this is sort of the, sort of the claims that I wanted to go through was like, you need to have this massive body of evidence and not just like picking one or two small issues and saying, this is like, you know, it doesn't kill the whole thing. Right. No, it doesn't. Right. So if you, if you find something that says, huh, this is intriguing and I need to go and research it more, that doesn't destroy an entire like hundreds of years of, of a model that's been working really well. It doesn't work. I mean, ask, dude, I was in the military, ask people who shoot long distance, right? I do. I know. More than two miles. They have to, they have to operate under the, the Coriolis effect all the damn time. Right. They don't. Talk to the guy who broke the world record. Talk to the guy directly who broke the world record. So it's just a lie. Yes. Okay. What, what did they say about? They don't, it never accounts for Coriolis ever. No, it's because the little device that they use to plug the numbers in does it for them. When you know the distance, when you know the direction you're shooting, when you know the atmosphere, when you know the barometric pressure, the device will adjust for you. You just click your little dials and it'll, it'll dial it in for you. Said that they never account for Coriolis. That's because the device does it for you. Oh, so do they have to account for the win or does the device do it for them? No, that is something you have to account for, but usually you guys usually have like either a really good weather report or you look at signs in the, in the surrounding environment, like dust plumes and trees moving, stuff like that. No one accounts for Coriolis. And if you say that it's built into the machine, that's a cool story. And even if there is Coriolis, it doesn't even prove that the earth is moving. It doesn't even prove that the earth is moving. So in reality, what they do when they shoot a long distance, if they did account for Coriolis, it would basically not change anything. That's a way more of a factor. So you have to account for that. If you miss your target to the right, it's because of wind. Nothing to do with Coriolis. Now you could say long distance artillery shells or something, but same thing. They miss their targets all the time and then have to correct. And the primary factor is wind. And even if Coriolis was real, it does improve the earth is spinning because if the entire sky is moving around the earth, it would translate a force to the earth. So I don't know if you've looked into any of this yet. Right. I'm just, I'm still so curious, right? Cause it's like, I mean, like, so I asked, I asked you about like things like NASA, right? This, this institution that's been doing some really cool stuff, right? We're able to talk right now because of satellites that are in space. Space program has started. There's space programs all over the world, right? They're what China has one, the UN has one. I think South Korea has one. Russia has a space program. I mean, are they all doing a consistent lie all the time? Yeah. Are they all signed to the Antarctic Treaty? What does that matter? So they clearly can cooperate together to conceal something from the public. They, they all agree to the Antarctic Treaty. So can you play with the Antarctic Treaty? Yeah. So the treaties founded in 1959. Cause incidentally one year after NASA was founded and directly after America went and explored Antarctica. Coincidentally, America went and they brought the Nazis over here in 45, 1946 operation high jump. They wouldn't explore Antarctica. They did that for many years with Admiral Bird who said there's tons of land beyond the South Pole that no one knows about. Then 1955 operation deep breeze. The government went back there, founded little America base in 57. They agree with a bunch of countries to shut down travel to the North and to the South. And then in 1958 founded NASA and 59 founded Antarctica and Arctic Treaty, which says that there is no private and free exploration allowed past the 60 South latitude, which is a circle drawn around you roughly 500 to 1000 miles from the edge of Antarctica depending on where you are. And that's intact today. The longest lasting peace treaty in modern history. That's Russia, China, America, you name it. They all say that you and I can't privately and freely explore the one region that would prove the Earth's sphere. So how convenient. Yeah, I mean, you said a lot of words there like coincidentally, one thing happened a year after another thing happened. It's like, yeah, that happens all the time, dude. Like that's the procession of time. One thing does happen a year after another thing happened. So I don't really understand why that's a point for you. And then it went to the Antarctic Treaty. The other thing about the Antarctic Treaty was that you weren't allowed to put like major military installations there, which I think was a really good idea because you don't want to have, you know, boots on the ice. People, people running around making a mess of it. I mean, it's like a pristine area that's incredibly sensitive to like ecological disasters. I don't really see how this is like a, like a big whoa to you. It's just like, yeah, there's pristine areas of the Earth that we should probably try to protect from any major exploitation. Like the Amazon rainforest. Again, I don't really see how that goes to your point about Antarctica. It's like, so my question was, so my question was, so hold on, so hold on. My question was originally, do you think that all of these institutions are lying?  You said yes, because they're able to hold a treaty that's protecting very delicate places of the Earth. I don't really understand how that works for you. I didn't say yes, because every time I have a debate, it's always tactical misrepresentation. But what I said was in rebuttal to your, in rebuttal to your question, which clearly implied that it's somehow impossible for all these countries to cooperate together. I said they're already cooperating together. It's something called the Antarctic Treaty, which is very specific to this discussion. The military wouldn't explore Antarctica for a decade and came back and said, no one's allowed to go there. Oh, but it's for the, it's for the environment, but we can burn down millions and millions of square feet of the Amazon rainforest daily. But we don't, we care about the ice that has nothing there. No one can even just travel there.  That's why it's relevant. So do you not think it's weird that we can't freely explore the Earth? No, I don't. There's a lot of places you can't freely explore. If I own a track of land in Northern California, you cannot freely explore it because I own it. Who owns Antarctica? How is that weird? Who owns Antarctica? Who owns Antarctica? This isn't a system of ownership that I'm talking about. I'm just, I was giving you an example. That's what you just said. You can't explore. I was giving you an example of some place you can't freely explore, right? You cannot come to my land and freely explore. Yeah. Because it's your land. You own it. So who owns Antarctica? It's 3,500 miles in diameter. That's like the size of the United States. So why is it we can't explore there? Why does that help your point? Okay. I'm so confused. I already told you this. You should listen. If we go north to south. Yeah. So you think that we can't explore this because there is some massive conspiracy by multiple government agencies and multiple governments to stop people from going and exploring the truth about the shape of the earth. Well, just what's the facts? Just to cut back in here, you just asked him a question about Antarctica. So we're going to let Austin get into that and keep the conversation moving. Okay. What is a fact is that the Antarctic Treaty doesn't allow us to explore there. We can disagree on why they're doing that and is it to hide the shape of the earth or whatever? But what is just a fact is that what would prove the globe is to circumnavigate north to south, go over Antarctica and pop back up on the other side of a ball. What's illegal to do is freely and privately explore Antarctica and try to go over the continent and pop back up on the other side of the ball and no one's ever done it. So yes, it's sketchy that we're not allowed to freely and privately explore. It's not what I think a conspiracy is going on or no, it's just admittedly the case. You can't go there. Right. I have no problem with that. Nor do I think it's a point towards flat earthers. I don't think that this is a, it's a major issue. Yeah. You can't go to some places on the earth because they are very delicate. Yes. Amazon rainforest burning. That's bad. I would like to stop that. Right. I would vote for someone who wants to stop that. Also protecting very delicate places of our earth such as Antarctica. Yeah. It was really good over there. Why is it delicate? Why is it? It's a large, like untouched ice expanse with land underneath. It's where we get core samples. It's a place you don't really want to mess up. You're like, we learned a lot by going down there and drilling down and discovering ice. You don't want to have military presence down there. You want to have scientists only. You don't want to have tourists. Like I'm totally on board with that. You don't want to have people dropping off like red solo cups of beer in this ice that people need to study. 3,500 miles. They admit they don't even go to the middle of it because it's too dangerous. So this is the facts. This doesn't prove the earth is flat. What it proves is that you can't freely and privately explore the earth, the very region that would help prove the earth's a globe. All the countries are in agreement. It objectively would if you understood basic things like circumnavigation, so you're not allowed to go there freely and privately only on an approved guided tour to one little, two little sections. So it's highly suspect that our military brought the Nazis over here who were obsessed with Antarctica, then went and explored Antarctica the very next year, then for a decade explored it, came back and said, you guys are not allowed to go there. That means they're probably hiding something in Antarctica. Right. So that's also begging the question is that you think that the only way that this entire thing that seems really reasonable to anyone looking at it. The only way this makes sense to you is if you think there's something being hidden down there, which is the proof of a globe or a flat earth. Right. This is, it's kind of territorial thinking and I'm like, I'm so curious, right? Like you distrust NASA because of, well, you've made a genetic fallacy there, right? Just because it was started by someone that may or may have had nefarious reasonings. I don't actually, I don't really land on a side there, but that doesn't mean that what it's doing today is bad or it's tainted anyway. All right. So like, straw man. Right. People go into space. They take a lot of pictures. We go to the moon. Do you think that people have been to the moon? Before, wait, straw man fallacy. I did not say I don't believe in NASA because they were founded by Nazis. I said, I don't blindly trust federal government. And she's founded by Nazis that I've seen and caught faking footage numerous times. You tactically omitted the entire argument, which is that we've caught them faking footage. How do you know the footage was faked? I don't understand that. What footage are you talking about? And how do you know it was faked? There's all kinds of footage. Maybe we should show the audience some of the footage. But for example, they will disappear. An astronaut will just disappear. So he'll start going around the corner and he'll fade out of the screen before he gets around the corner. Well, that's what would happen if you layer an astronaut on a background and try to fade him out. But a camera can't just videotape someone and then they disappear and fade out of picture. Someone's hand can't go through microphones. Someone's hand can't go through a lemon and zero G. Someone's shirt doesn't get pulled like that. OK, that's it. That's what harnesses do, though. So we've caught them glitching out and their hands going through objects. We've got astronauts grabbing objects that aren't there. You're laughing and you've never researched it.  So you're saying that there's a secretive lying government agency that is making up a massive, you haven't really described the reasons either. So there's hundreds of thousands of people that are hiding this fact that we have gone into space, to the moon, the Earth is a sphere. And yet, even though they spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on this project, somehow they're still really, it's not as simple as Photoshop.   It can be done, but it's not easy because if you're using chroma keys, blue and green screens and virtual reality or augmented reality, it's very difficult to get all the layers properly functioning in live time. So that's right. It's they didn't master it. That's right. I've done photography and editing. I'm pretty I'm pretty understanding what's going on here.  So first off, you don't have to do it live. And this is the weird part is like, you're saying that they're doing all this live and then they're they're messing up, which is like it just blows my mind, right? If you're going to be spending hundreds of million dollars on this, you pay someone a decent amount of money to make it fairly seamless. You don't have these large issues, right? This is like, which one are they? Are they really bad at stuff or are they really good at stuff and you just don't believe it? They are decently good because people like yourself just blindly believe that they're free falling around an object in a vacuum floating around for 20 years or whatever, but they have messed up. We caught them messing up. You've never even looked at it. So it's like you blindly believe it. So for you, this is effectively a religion. You just can't fathom the idea that someone would lie on that scale. Therefore it can't be true. And you haven't even researched it. I mean, I would still be a ballerther if I did that as well. That's the easy way out. That's the weak way. And I would be a flat earther if I wanted to have a claim to special knowledge based on loosely connected ideas that don't really make any sense, right? This is actually doing research. No, you're not doing research, dude. Like you're not, right? Did you did you publish papers on this? Has it been peer reviewed? You're not doing research. You are Googling stuff. And you are trying to make it fit some sort of model that you've already concocted in your mind. You think something can be true unless it's peer reviewed? This is the problem. No, that's not how true works. I think that it's a higher confidence that it's a reliable source. No, I have a peer review paper that says peer review sucks. Literally. Cool. That's awesome. So this is the problem I'm having with this, with this discussion is like, there's really no, like, and this is, this is the thought I had going into this, there's really no sort of evidence of any kind that I could bring in here because you would either say that it's been faked that it is false or that you have some counter piece of evidence that totally blows it out of the water. There's nothing I could bring. No, you haven't researched. There's nothing I could bring to this. This is why I wanted to sit here and actually talk to you about your ideas, talk to you about, like, how the whole thing works. Why would like, how did this earth even come to be? Because if it's a sphere earth, we have, we have super solid models about how spherical objects are made in space. No, you don't. No, you don't. So you don't even know, I bet you don't even know how they claim the earth was made. Okay, cool. I don't know. Why'd you just invoke it? Why'd you invoke it? Because I don't have to, because I don't have to answer that, that weird bet sort of thing. You brought it up. I went, you know, I went through high school science class. I know what an accretion disk is. I know how gravity works. Right. I, I get it. The thing is, is that this, this is my problem with this debate is like anything that I bring up, right? Gravity. How does gravity work? Are we going really fast upwards? No, I know more about, okay. How does gravity work? Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. This is the problem. Anything, anything that I bring up that you try to provide an answer to, you're just going to either say that my thing is wrong because of some crazy conspiracy that you brought up or that anyone of any sort of a gravitas in the situation is lying, which is just super rude. Let's, let's step in here. So your question to Austin, he was going to answer there was how does gravity work? I think that's a good conversation to get into there. So we'll kick it over to Austin on that point. Yeah. So when you ask me how something works, you're saying that I'll just dismiss it. You're making positive claims. So you have the burden of proof. So when you say, how does gravity work? You don't even know what gravity is. So can you define gravity before I have to explain how it works? What is gravity that I need to explain? It's a force that moves objects towards the center of large masses. That's not even what gravity is in your model anymore because that model doesn't work. Gravity is not a force specifically. It's the effect of the bending and warping of space and time that guides things due to the displacement of mass and it's not a force. And objects change direction based on geodesic paths without a force directly against Newton who said that it was a force. So you don't know what you believe again. That's the reoccurring theme here. I'm sorry. You were supposed to explain how gravity works. You, you, okay. I don't have to explain something that isn't actually substantiated. Can you tell me how Superman works? How is it not substantiated? Because again, the model right now admits they don't even know what gravity is. So let's take the current model that you obviously don't know. It's called the theory of relativity. I just explained what it says. When they took that and applied it to this assumed solar system with the ball moving around it and in this solar system flying through space, it was off by 96%. The theory doesn't even work mathematically. If you go ask any physicist in the world worth their salt, what is gravity? They will tell you, we have no idea. All we know is that what we currently think it is is wrong and incomplete. Any physicists in the world. Yeah, that's, that's what I said earlier. Like the beginning of this debate, right? This is, this is the process of science. This is the process of discovery.  No, no, no. When you make a claim, you have to substantiate it. This is, let's talk about how science actually works since you keep bringing that up. So in science, if you have a theory and then the evidence directly goes against your theory, you have to throw your theory out. That's Richard Feynman. No, you don't throw it out. You refine it. If only if the refinement can result in a viable explanation for the evidence. Great. So how does, how do we stand on a flat disc or whatever your model is? You actually haven't said, you actually haven't said what your model is and how we're even like, like you haven't said anything about your worldview. I'm just, I'm, yeah, I'm asking you to explain your worldview. You can't explain yours. Flat earth on soil or whatever it is. So go ahead and tell us like, I'm sure everyone here is very excited to hear how you think, how you think that we are standing on this planet. Like how does it work? We're not on a planet. So whatever it is you want to call it, whatever it is you want to call it, how are we standing on it? It's just with our feet. So it's a stationary topographical plane. It's geocentric cosmos. The earth is in the center as all evidence ever has shown us, right? Your model claims it just looks like that. It's just an illusion. Full story, bro. Okay. The earth's in the center. It doesn't move. It's a topographical plane. Seemingly we're in a tourist field, an electromagnetic tourist field and everything moves within that around the earth. You're, you're more dense than the air.  We have a downward electric current on the earth, which is 10 micro micro amps per meter. That's why we have a downward bias. That's why things go up and or down relative to their density of relationship. Now substantiate your claim that we're on a ball bending convexly, omnidirectionally, and we're being pulled down in all directions by something called gravity that isn't defined. Okay. Yeah. So gravity, right? I'm going to start pretty simple. Pulls everything towards the center of this large mass. And when we stand on the planet, gravity pulls us downwards. When you go to higher elevations, you actually are slightly further away from the gravitational pulse.  You can jump jump a little higher, right? Pretty neat. That was pretty easy. Right.  I was like, but it's not. We have to. Okay. So like we have to go against the force of gravity, right? And you think it's air. It's air density. Is that what you think it is? Air density? Yeah. You don't listen. So did you say everything? The reason why we're standing on the ground is you think we're being pushed down by air? Everything's intrinsically electrostatic. And then objects go up or down relative to their density of relationship. That's provable. If you want to talk about science, I can scientifically test what I'm saying. I can take an object that's more dense than the air. I can drop it. It goes down. Then I can use a Vendograph generator to introduce electrostatics. I can make the object levitate and or just go up. I can change its weight. I can change how fast it falls with electrostatics. All objects that exist are electrostatic. The air is electrostatic. Even in a vacuum, there's electrostatics. So I'm now scientifically proven that electrostatics will change the weight of an object. How fast it falls in its direction. Now, can you do the same thing with gravity? Can you give me an experiment that actually isolates gravity and proves it's the cause? Okay. I'm ready to go to questions. I'm actually like, this is exactly how I thought it was going to go. And I'm not thrilled about this. And with it seems to be fairly uncharitable to having like just a regular conversation about what you believe and why. So. No, you're just, you're just not being very genuine about the interaction. Like I explained to you. No, look, it, what I'm being is, is I'm being like straightforward on this, right? This is a fringe weird belief that absolutely like very few people believe. I think this is, this is what I think honestly. I think this whole thing started with a bunch of very sad men in basements trying to get a lot of very special knowledge because their lives suck. And so they're trying very, very hard to have claims to special knowledge to try to make themselves feel more important. I also think that if you talk to any, if you talk to any flat earth or any flat earthers, they're going to have completely radically different views of how this whole thing works. Some of them think the Illuminati did it. Some of them think that the, that there's aliens somewhere that have constructed all this.  This is all insane. So I wanted to start, I wanted to sit here and get like a real understanding of what you're, of what you're, what you're thinking and how you're thinking it. And it just seems to be like really snotty. So I would like to, You're just not listening. Yeah. You're running away. No, I am listening. And this is, there's no weight.  And I understand that. Right. I enjoy debate too. But you have this very strange position. You're trying to create these grand worldviews about it. You're trying to put a lot of, a lot of people who work really hard, like the folks at NASA into some strange nefarious like purpose. Like this is what I thought it would be. And it's, it's really frustrating to me because it's just so like, it's just so obvious to me. You're just appealing to emotion. That was an appeal to emotion. That's not an appeal. I don't know. Stop that.  You heard me. Everyone heard me. We can move on to questions. Now you're getting, I'm not going to respond to some of that. No, you don't. Like, do you think you have special knowledge? Does it make you special? Right. These are all like, that seems to be what's going on. Well, I will say, you're doing a special thing. I will say Malachi. Just where you did have a couple of minutes there to kind of close up your thoughts there. I will kick the ball over to Austin for up to a minute and a half there to kind of give a closing thoughts where it seems like that was kind of your, kind of more of like a closing statement. So up to a minute and a half to you, Austin, on that there. Okay. So I get that this conversation sounds crazy when you first hear like when I first heard that people thought the earth is flat and I was confused. I didn't even understand it.  We have pictures of earth from space. And that's where you are. Frankly. That's cool. I like, I can relate to that. I get it. You probably haven't researched it. It hasn't clicked in your mind that it's even like a thing that makes sense to research and that's whatever. But I used to be there and believe it or not, so did tens of millions of people that now know that the earth is not the globe that they told us it is because you can go test it. So we didn't get to the real specifics here, which is that the earth claims to be a sphere with a radius value of 3,959 miles. That means based on basic geometry, the earth has to curve at a very specific rate. It does not do that. My guy, I tested it all over the United States. It doesn't do that. You can see hundreds of miles away consistently. You can pull infrared out and see even further. The earth is not what they said it is. You look into it and the current model says, well, all evidence says we're in the center. We can't prove that we're going around the sun, but we're going around the sun because if we weren't, then maybe God made it and that would make a special.  So like they run around making up stories. And yes, they, most people are not in on the lie. In conclusion, most people believe the lie. Most of the people at NASA believe in the lie. Okay. So I wish that we would have got to more specifics, but per usual, if anyone watches this back and looks at the file, sees I listed off in the presentation, they were all used. And that's what always happens. Effectively gaslighting. But I encourage the audience to actually look into some of the stuff I said and test it for yourself because it may not be as crazy as you think it is. There you go. All right. Well, thank you, Austin. What's it and Malachi for coming out and having this discussion tonight. We're going to kick it over to the Q&A and keep those or those super chats coming in and we'll keep the conversation moving along here. As I'm sure these the super chats that we've pulled already are going to launch us into more discussion. So experiments in prebiotic chemistry for $2. What if the earth was actually flat YouTube? I think they're talking about the channel what if. So I think they're kind of plugging that. I don't know if anybody here has seen that if either of you gentlemen have seen what if their take on if the earth. No, I don't get my stuff from YouTube.  I don't. I don't know if they've done a video on it, but I think that's what they're implying here is that company. So have you seen that video by them? What's it about that? No, it's like a mainstream hit piece on flat earth. I mean, it's going to be really remedial straw man. So it seems like a waste of time. All right, fair enough. Congo, can go 44 550 question for what's it instead of all of your fallacy stuff. Could you present some evidence for a flat earth? I literally predicted that you were going to say that in the presentation like just watch the presentation back. I literally all this fallacy stuff. That's how debates work. Intellectual form. The definition of a fallacy is an invalid argument.  That's why I have to call fallacies. Just saying it's actually a breach of reason. We'll give you a chance there Malachi. Let's let him finish up. We'll give 15 seconds. Definition of a logical fallacy is an invalid argument. And so as to the positive evidence, I literally presented it to you. Let me just shotgun some for you. Long distance radio waves, long distance line of sight, horizontal microwaves, mirror flashes, long distance observations in both regular spectrum of light and infrared laser tests at low elevations. We've tested the surface of the earth where they suppose convexity doesn't exist. All right. Any thoughts on that Malachi? Yeah. This is the same point I've been bringing up this whole time is that I, there are no real arguments here. Cause you need to construct like a whole encompassing argument about the flat earth. You need to show a model. You need to show how it works. What you're doing is the same thing that a lot of these flat earthers do is that they choose one very specific thing or a couple of very specific things. They say, huh, that's funky. That doesn't work the way I thought it would. And then they attack it thinking that they're actually making an argument, but they're not. All you're doing is saying that something is funky and more inquiry is needed. Alrighty. So the question was towards you there Austin. So any closing on that or continue on? Yeah. Yeah. Empirical physical evidence that shows that the earth surface isn't curving is evidence or a flat earth. It's pretty. If the surface of the earth isn't curving, what is it? Okay. Pretty simple stuff. Alrighty. Congo again. 550 question for Whitsitt. I use an equatorial mount. This only works if the earth is spherical. My mount works. I explain why it works. Yeah. I explain. Equatorial. Equatorial. Equatorial. I did say it right. Yeah. So I explained in the presentation that the only evidence you'll ever get for the globe is someone saying the Ursa globe, and this can only happen if the Ursa globe. This happens. That's the Ursa globe. I beg in the question or affirm in the consequent. Anyway. And for those that don't know equatorial mounts, they track the stars in the sky or a celestial body. They track them. As they go down to the horizon, because the stars move in our sky, a star sit then tracked down to the ground. Right. So it's literally designed assuming the Ursa sphere, it tracks it down, which happens on a flatter, if the stars get further away and they decline optically. And then it just tracks back down through the earth and back up to when the stars come back around with the 15 degree per hour side deer rotation measured for maybe 7,000 years, 5,000 years by now. It does improve the earth as a sphere. Tracking the motion of the stars is actually just evidence that the stars move over a stationary earth. So that's called backing the question. All right. Let's continue. We asked for you to explain real quick. He asked for you to explain how that works on your model. You didn't say how that works on your model. I literally did. Yeah. There's stars move in the sky. How do the stars move in the sky when we have some flat plane? Where are the stars? I mean, you have a lot of work to do, as I think what the question is pointing out. You have a lot of work to do when it comes to creating an entire model that actually works and explains any of this. Yeah. And you can't just say they move, right? We know that they move because we're in a spherical globe. There's a whole universe around us. We're seeing it. We're seeing it. But you need to show that is what the question is asking. That's weird because the globe claims that they don't move, but they just look like they move. And it's just an illusion because we're moving. They do move. It's called like red and blue shift is how we measure how fast they're moving away from us or towards us. We're talking about sidereal rotation. It's an equatorial mount. Okay. Anyway, so the stars move in the sky. You haven't explained that. Yeah. The stars move in the sky. It's called sidereal rotation as to what's the dynamics of it, meaning like the physical cause, the physical mechanism or force. That's a great question. The globe model doesn't know it either. Just explained that their best predictions off 96%, but seemingly it would be electromagnetic. There's a vortex in the middle of the earth that extends up and then creates the vortex motion called the Sagnaq effect, which is literally what's used to calibrate ring laser gyros, which measure the sidereal rotation. It's called the Sagnaq effect discovered by Sagnaq who said it's a vortex in the aether. All of the motions fit within the ellipses inside of a torus field. So I think the person that discovered the technology we used to measure it was correct and that the default empirical evidence is true, not the opposite claim without evidence. Pretty simple stuff. All right. Well, thank you so much for that, gentlemen. Let's continue on here. Kango 44, again, 550. And just to remind everybody, keep those super chats coming in. We have all kinds of thoughts here as you can tell in what we have coming in so far. So if you have a question for one of our speakers, fire it in the live chat and let's continue on. So question for Witsit from Kango 44. Please explain why traveling west from the UK, I didn't end up at the shore of Antarctica. What? When you travel east or west, it's relative to north. So you update relative to north as you travel. Okay. So if I'm going around north in the center, I'm going to update east or west in this case. I'm going to keep turning slightly as I go around the center. It's pretty simple stuff. Any thoughts there, Malachi, or do you want to continue on? We can continue. All right. So the messenger $5 global global believer. Why are you okay with astronauts faking space on the ISS? Why harnesses CGI mistakes, water bubbles, space rat on booster, et cetera? Space rat on booster. That sounds like some sort of 80s commercial. Yeah. So gullible global believer. That's spicy. So why are you okay with the astronauts faking space on the ISS? Why harnesses CGI mistakes, water bubbles, and space rats on the booster, et cetera? Okay. So Neil deGrasse Tyson said this really well. He said that when you're looking, when you're trying to scour YouTube, well, this is paraphrasing, when you're trying to scour YouTube in order to find some strange piece of evidence that fits your, your own already wacky beliefs, you have the problem of having incomplete information. Like you don't know what's going on outside of any of these frames. Right. Again, I've done photography. Right. This is a, this is like a, this looks like it was in a dark room. Right. This is a well lit room and I use high speed sync. People say, Oh, this is a well lit room. Like, no, this is, this wasn't a dark room. This is, this is something behind me. This is something that I did with photo techniques. And again, so like the other, the other problem I'm having with this is like the idea that there's these massively well funded conspiratorial, I don't know, Illuminati, Freemason, Nazi craziness. I don't know what you're all about. Right. The idea that there's this huge vast expanse of people that are lying to everybody and they get wire harnesses. Like the Marvel movies don't get wire harnesses wrong. Right. They get wire harnesses wrong. They get a screen, like video editing techniques wrong. That's like artifacts of CGI. Right.  You want to talk about like strange and conspiratorial thinking that is, that is far beyond the pale when it comes to just being absolutely diluted near beliefs. Yeah. So you can look up NASA's contracts and they have contracts with companies that specialize in aerial performances, specifically harnesses that can be detected by an audience. They're very lightweight and maneuverable. They have tons of contracts with augmented reality companies, virtual reality companies, companies that specialize in creating a set live time via augmented reality. All these are contracted through NASA. We've looked through their footage and caught some of it glitching out. So either you can research it or not and check out audit NASA.com because we're coming out of the documentary exposing them. And, you know, either stick your head in the sand or look into what you may not know. Okay. So just to recap on that, you said that they have a contract with a group of event production people who are specialized at making harnesses that you can't see. And yet you saw it. No, you don't see the wires, but you can see that the shirt moves. Yeah.  Specifically at, at angles that are impossible in zero G physically, according to physics and zero G, your shirt can't go like this and then pull your body forward. That's not how zero G works. And it happens consistently on the ISS. Yeah. That goes back to the Neil DeGrasse Tyson quote. You're trying to create grand world views out of very little evidence. This broad and vague hand wave dismissal is your debate tech. It's not very fruitful. Thank you. All right. All right. Well, let's continue on from there. So can go 44 strikes again for 550. Whitsitt, please look at a polished chrome ball. They explicit specular reflections, specular reflections can occur on any shape object. That isn't correct. Just saying that it can happen is not true. You can't get a true specular reflection on surface that is convex. It's basic physics. You have a diffused reflection if it's convex or concave. A really extreme example is like clown house mirrors, right? Like you can see it looks all crazy. That's because the mirrors aren't flat. So yeah, you get reflections off of say a smooth sphere, but they're not specular reflections. There is distortion and stretching of the image that's being reflected. Alrighty. Let's continue on. Up my list. All right. Paul Brandsfield $5. When NASA says that that that when NASA says that they destroyed the technology, doesn't that mean that the shuttles were destroyed during use? So we have to rebuild them. I should really work on these when I'm and read them before I read them out to make sure there's no typo typos. When NASA says that they destroyed the technology, does that mean that the shuttles were destroyed during use? So we have to rebuild them. I think that way. Would it be? Yeah. Yeah. I think NASA is a bunch of weirdos that claims they went to the moon in 69 and then they destroyed the technology that accomplished the biggest feat in the history of mankind and that they haven't been able to rebuild it yet. So to me, it's all weird. Did they destroy the rocket technology? I don't know. I went to Kennedy Space Center. Did the rocket space garden tour? Very underwhelming. They have the rocket still there. So the answer would be no, the rockets are still there. They're real ones, but they didn't really go to space. You can see them. So I don't know. I don't know what technology they're talking about. Go ask NASA how it's 50 years later. You can't replicate technology from the 50s, but my iPhone is better than a warehouse of computers. We are coincident number 578. All right. Let's continue on there. I just saw somebody put a super chat there saying Malachi, where can we discuss this further? We'll get to that at the end, but I feel like this is a good time just to do a little shout out to Hannah who's been working hard in the discord along with certain general to make sure that we have lots of debates happening in there on the daily. So if anybody's wondering where to get a hold of someone like Malachi, they're kicking around there along with a bunch of other people on the modern day debate discord. So check that out. And I do see right now we have almost 700 people watching, but only 169 likes. So and definitely take the time to go down there and hit that like button everybody. You know, if we can get everybody hitting the like button. Yeah, who knows? Maybe I'll do a little outro solo as well. I'll get fancy to match the like button or we're all just going to sit here in silence and stare at you. And we're going to make weird faces too. Really like intensely odd faces. All right, we're not going to do that. We're not going to be any characters tonight. All right, so Tim Pryor, $10.  You're wrong, but fluff reset. Yeah, I actually have a high level conversations with astronomers, astrophysicists, quantum physicists, physicists of all sorts, regularly geologists, even on my channel, actually, what's it gets it on YouTube. You can go check it out. There's a series called in the field. Physicists, PhD in physics called in the other day. Anyway, I know exactly what the scientific method is. It's very simple. I'm going to really briefly break it down, but you have a naturally occurring phenomena. It's an observable phenomena. You see you're like, hmm, I want to explain that. Okay, so let's figure out what causes that to happen. So that's your presumed cause, your independent variable. You isolate it so you can manipulate it and see if it changes the effect. So you can prove a cause and effect relationship test. If you propose a hypothesis, a cause and effect relationship test. So it's pretty simple. You manipulate the independent variable to verify that it causes the dependent variable, the observable phenomena, that is science. Alrighty, let's continue on. Sky Cyan 499, Austin, I heard you're having a summit. Where can I find info on this? A trueearther.com is where you can read about the summit. It's going to be super dope. It's a virtual summit online. We got people talking about, let's just say terrain theory, important information that the average person doesn't know about regarding law, stuff about the earth, stuff about electroculture, stuff about different variants of health, ancient information that's not well known. So super dope, two-day summit has all kinds of information, dope things. Even if you're not sure about the earth, it's not even about that. Just a bunch of cool presentations. So trueearther.com is where you can get your tickets and then you can use wits at 50 and get 50% off. Alright, awesome. As you heard there, that's where that event is going to be and it warranted triple dopes, apparently. Triple dopes it's going to be. I was going to say, yeah, no, I was going to say, I heard it the first time and I was like, it's going to be dope. That's cool. Say it three times. No, it's cool. That's cool. I was going to say, so you heard it here. Let's continue on. Always appreciate you guys being here and having these conversations. So Tim Pryor, $20, thank you so much, Tim. When Austin can name one field of science or any scientist that agrees with him will listen. Until then, he should not be allowed to say the word science, but millions have jobs depending on gravity. We'll just put that up on the floor for five minutes there, expound on that, the two of you. So have at it. The field of science doesn't do anything. The field of science is my idea. It's a concept. It doesn't say anything, do anything. There are different people that perform science or study within scientific fields and they're individuals and they think different things. And if there's a cult of belief that can't be challenged, that's the opposite of science. The entire idea of science is to constantly try to figure out what's going on and have new ideas. And I know tons of scientists and physicists that do agree with me. And when you say that all these people rely on gravity, what you actually mean is they use 9.8 meters per second squared, an average of how fast things fall, engineering. That's it. That's all they do. Well, okay, we can solve for that with a kinematic equation. We know that everything's intrinsically electrostatic. We can solve for that without even knowing the cause of gravity or that it's what people think it is at all. Things fall down at an average rate. That's how we get weight. So when we build things, we have to account for its weight. So yeah, we do that on a flat earth too. I had to rig it too. So there you go. There's all kinds of fields of physics and science and there's comprised of many people that have many different opinions.  All right. Any thoughts on that, Malachi? Yeah, I have a couple that are kind of directly connected to the gravity question, but like, I mean, like it seems like, you know, you have distrust of these institutions because you think that they have, I don't know, agendas. And then I just heard in the response to the last question that you actually make money off of doing this. I'm not here to make money. I'm here to have a conversation with people because I like to do that.  So it's like, I think it's interesting to like, you're over there saying like, oh, these people, you know, they have some sort of agenda. The scientific community has an agenda or something like that because they want to do acts, presumably make money, but then you're also doing like the exact same thing. You're creating these counterpoints to appeal to an audience that also like you're trying to make money off of it. I'm just trying to like figure out like, how do you balance these agendas? Yeah. Oh, there he goes. The ether did not like your comment, bro. Oh, you cut it for a second Malachi. What was the last thing you said there? Oh, I was just trying to figure out how he, how he balances these like, like how is his agenda righteous and yet other people who are in the scientific community like deluded or something. All right. Yeah, I have no problem with anyone doing science. That's truly trying to figure out what the truth is. And that's cool with me. To imply that I talk about the earth not being a tilted wobbling spinning weirdo globe in a vacuum flying around in the sun, but no one can tell brought to you by Jesuit's priests and openly admitted sun worshiping occultist weirdos doesn't have any logic to it to insinuate that I chose that to make money when it's censored and I've been kicked off PayPal. And I had to sacrifice a six figure job because I talked about flat earth online and they said, take the videos down or you can't have the job. So I didn't do this for money. I basically make nothing on YouTube because I'm heavily censored. I run multiple businesses myself. But I speak the truth because despite the societal ostracism and the attacks and the ridicule from people that are less informed and the censorship and the being kicked off of different platforms, even third party payment platforms. I speak the truth because it's the right thing to do. And there are tons of people that blindly believe in the word science. Don't know what science is. Don't do any research and they handed their thoughts over to the idea of a group that they can't even define. And now we have a bunch of brainwashed people easily propagandized. So I speak the truth at the detriment of my finances. And I don't demonize an entire group of quote unquote scientists either. That would be a strawman. Okay. So now it sounds like you're a cultist. Okay. Well, sorry, bro. All right. All you have is like ad homes and poisoning the wealth houses. It's pretty low. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I told you at the beginning of this, like there's so much like there's, there are thousands of strange things. The flat earth or community does not agree with anyone. I didn't even know who actually I was talking to until I jumped on here. There's no way that I could, like, I'd have to go and get multiple degrees, PhD level degrees and multiple fields in order to try to even have like a cogent conversation about any of this. So it's like, I'm here to explore and learn and understand and that that's where I'm at. Right. That's what I'm trying to experience. And what I get. You could read books. What I get it. Well, I'm actually not really all that interested in the flat earth conversation because I don't think it's a big thing.  Yeah. All right. Well, I think we, we've expanded on the more than five minutes on that question there. Thank you, Tim Pryor for the $20 super chat. What's it? Do you have expertise in VR and compute and computer generated imagery? I have been working in the field for 30 years. Could you talk to the rendering and optics NASA are using? Okay. Well, all I can speak to is what they're openly admitted contracts are, which are with augmented reality, virtual reality, a company that specializes and say, for example, you can be talking in front of a green screen and live time, which is actually very impressive technology, live time. They can make it look like they're in a real professional like Fox Sports Studio, but they're just in front of a green room, which, which has been done for a while, but live is tricky. They have a contract with that company. I mean, as to what they're doing specifically, it looks like they're using chroma keys, blue and green screens, augmented reality. They're using contacts that use virtual reality. You can see the context literally change in their eyes. You can watch them look forward as they're trying to grab objects, which is what you do with virtual reality overlaid. And then they missed the objects or there's not an object there or their hand goes through the object or objects fall in zero G. So I don't trust what they do. It's that simple. There's enough evidence there to not trust them, much less build my entire world view. Off of ignoring the thousands of glitches or let's say hundreds, hundreds of glitches. So I'm just, I just think that's weird, bro. I don't believe in the government. Like I want evidence. I can test myself. Well, you're not here for the last three years. We should probably not blindly believe the government that it flops every day and has your worst interest in mine. I got a real quick comment. Yeah. Yeah. This is, I mean, like. So again, this is, this is, it goes towards like this whole absolute like incredible claim that NASA is somehow making this stuff up. Cause. Right. You found out about these contracts. Right. They're publicly funded. They're publicly funded. So they have to produce like a lot of financial information about what they're doing. You find out about these contracts. And it's like, I just don't understand how again, like they're this, they're this massive kind of like nefarious, organization that's trying to hide stuff. And then they don't remember to hide their contracts with like production companies. That doesn't make any sense. They can't. They can't. They don't even have to. You think that they're both brilliant and inept at the same time. And it just doesn't work. No, there's no say it's not. It's a compartmentalized group of people. Okay. And if you can explain to me why NASA needs a contract with the company that makes a studio look like it's something. It's not live time with green screen. Feel free to enlighten me. But until then, you can give some understandable way that that makes sense when I see their hands go through microphones. I know that's physically impossible, but it's exactly what happens with augmented reality that's layered. So I don't know. Are you scared to look into it? You should look into it as super suspect. You might want to know what you're defending. The government is NASA is faking footage. It's easy to prove that you just have to go watch it. I don't want to respond to that. Go on. Alrighty. So run booster bear 1999. Tim, you have no idea what Austin is talking about because you haven't looked into anything he says. I don't know who Tim is. Maybe somebody in the live chat. He's bringing truth and crushing the fake globe narrative in the process. The truth of where we live is actually important. Any thoughts on that. Sentiment there. I mean, I'm not Tim, but I can chime in. I actually don't think that this is a very important thing. I. So like, Whitsett has said a couple of times, right?   And we still do things accurately. So I actually don't really see why this is even an important conversation to a lot of people to spend so much time on. If it was a globe or if it was flat and we're still able to like operate. The same way on a day-to-day basis. I really don't see how that's like something to really. Care about. If there's more land. What would you do with land? We could just move to more land. What do you mean? What if there's more land if the earth is flat? I don't want to move. Hey, if the earth is flat, it means in the center of the entire cosmos. Again, I don't really see how that's like a useful thing right now. And we're kind of struggling to deal with the land that we have. I don't think we want to go and get more land. What? You think there's, you would be cool with a group of people saying the slaves aren't allowed to go to this land. Like the hunger games. Like, draw a circle around you and say you can't leave. Like, we're just fundamentally different people. If you just would complacently sit there knowing that there's land you're not allowed to go to. But I know the mass majority of the public wouldn't think that. Okay. So now that's more conspiratorial thinking, not only is this whole flatter thing true and then the globe earth is a, is a fake, but there's also some sort of like financial or territorial reasons to stop us from exploring these different areas. That, I mean, that's, that's highly suspect. What you do is you ask, why would it even matter? You say, I can't think of anything that that would even change. And then someone gives you a speculative answer about one of the things that it could change.  You asked, because you seem to not even be able to think about the possibilities of what the like would conceal. It would conceal that the earth is in the center of the entire cosmos. It would conceal that there could be more land. It would show that you can trust your senses and you don't have to blindly believe authority that everything's the opposite of what you observe. It would show that the countries work together. Maybe we shouldn't fall for divisive illusory politics. There's all kinds of things that it shows. I think you should figure out if it's true or not before just avoiding it because you don't know why it matters. Okay. And then you and the flat earth or consortium are holding conferences. And making YouTube videos instead of actually doing something about it. What are we supposed to do about it? No, I don't know. It's your crazy conspiracy. Right. Like get a plane, fly down there. Like if you're worried about getting shot down, things like that, something to be shot down for. Yeah. I have a five month old.    So. Well, I think this is a great question. Congratulations. So. Well, I think this is a great place. Yeah. Oh, yeah. So, so sidestep. Congratulations. Absolutely. Yes. Babies are a lot of fun. When they stop wearing diapers. Cool. I was going to diapers room. I was going to say, I've got older kids now and, you know, that's it's always something that I'm like, oh, my wife, every once in a while will be like, do you ever want to like have another kid? And I'm like, the diaper days. Do you remember the babies? You make more babies, bro. Remember the diaper days. Yeah. All right. So, experiments in pre-biotic chemistry, $5. What would be the benefit for the government to lie to the public about the shape of the earth? What is there to be gained by that? It's like discovered that, right? I mean, for one, it's just like, we just, as people, we want to know the truth. Truth is just important in general. The true nature of where you live is important. Like if you go see a sunset, I'm supposed to believe that the sun is stationary. And it looks like it's moving and setting. And I'm falling backwards. I just can't tell. Can't figure anything out. I'm like a caveman and I can't understand anything. I need daddy, government, and scientists that I can't explain or define. Tell me what I believe. That alone is important. Just truth is important. But they could be hiding lands. The evidence suggests they are hiding land. Go watch the Hunger Games, compare it to reality and wonder why it's so similar they drew a circle around you called the 60th South Latitude. You're not allowed to leave it. That's a fact. Whether you think it's weird, whether you want to justify it, back to the matter is it's 2023.  They're not allowed to leave. And 90% of the public doesn't even know it exists. That's weird. That's objectively weird. Any thoughts on that, Malakai? Before we move on. I mean, no, not particularly. I know we're getting close to the time that you said you wanted to be wrapping up, but we still got quite a few super chats here. Are you good to stay for a little bit longer? Try to get these wrapped up, Malakai? A little bit. Are any of them directed towards me? I do have some directed towards you. So if you are on a tight time schedule, we can kind of get through some of yours if you need to get Mosey in on. Yeah, that'd be great. All right. Okay. So we'll go through here. We'll pick up yours, Malakai. And then we'll come back to Austin's if you run out of time there. So Shane Cup. Malakai has not presented one piece of evidence we live on a ball. He's just appeared appealing to authority and ad homining Austin. Flat smacked. What was the prompt for this debate exactly? It is glow versus flat. I thought we were going to do flat earth on trial or something like that. That's fine. Glow versus flat. So at the beginning I actually went over five different pieces of evidence to talk about it, but that's really not where I wanted to be with this conversation. I wanted to understand where my opponent was at and I wanted to understand where the conversation was at. And just like I was saying, like bringing a piece of evidence and then someone saying, huh, that's interesting. It doesn't necessarily work like that or something like that. That's not creating your own model, right? That's not building a worldview in itself. You're just poking at other sort of things, right? It's problematic, right? Like it's kind of the nature of these debates where it's like I can spend a lot of time reading everything that I can on the internet, reading books, going through and trying to figure out what sort of things my opponent will bring up.  And like, so, I mean, Sam Harris spoke about this. There's a big reason why he didn't do a lot of interviews that he was asked to do is that you can't spend a lot of time going through and trying to debunk every weird thing that someone is going to bring up because then it's kind of the nature of these debates, right?  All right, well, let's continue on there. So I got another question for you, Malachi. Shane Cup, $1.99. Does Malachi have literally one globe proof at all? Kind of just covered this, right? Like this is like you can so very simple, right? As I've been on a ship, I've been on a ship and I've gone away from the port. The port will slowly disappear from the bottom up. That is a significant piece of evidence. So I don't really understand like, I could bring up several pieces of evidence and they tie in really well together. They create like a sort of a worldview. It already supports this massive body of evidence that you can go out there and look at. And all it takes is for conspiracy theorists and for people who are deluding themselves to say, ah, but what about this one sort of random kind of connected thing that doesn't seem to work the way we think it should work? And it's like now you have to launch down this entire investigatory path that we don't even have time for.  All right, let's continue on. Malachi from Nick for $10. Why did you stay at the beginning that you wanted to have a civil debate because you wanted to learn about flat earth, but immediately started calling Austin a crazy conspiracy theorist? You can do both. I understand his perspective now. And I said it pretty clearly kind of in my conclusion, which is like, I basically think that a lot of these folks kind of want to have some sort of secret knowledge that it's a deep fundamental need for people to feel special. And a lot of these guys go out and they try to concoct these worldviews because it makes them feel like they're doing something different or important. All right, another one from Nick for $10. Malachi, after calling Austin a conspiracy theorist, why did you rage quit after he was answering your question on his model of how things would work on a flat earth? How much money did Nick spend so far? Well, I was going to say, you know, we can definitely go back through the live chat and figure that out. But he's asking, I think that was when your computer or your internet may have crashed there, honestly. That's what it might be. I just want to explain the electrostatic nature of gravity. Yeah, that's a tough one. I'm going to go through. I'm in a rule area. Power is a little spotty. I'm going to rage quit, but I understand how it might have appeared that way. And go to this Nick. You can just, oh, my internet, my connection is stable. Look at that. You can go on to the Discord, to the modern day debate Discord, and just like at ping me in a five time, I'll come in and chat with you if you really want to ask that question. All right. Well, let's continue on then. Yeah, and don't worry people in the live chat there. I am getting your questions. It's just that I'm moving them around a little bit here, just where Malachi is on a bit of a time crunch. That way when he's, you know, in case his internet crashes or he gets to the end of his time, he can leave it as a leisure there and we'll have all of his questions answered. So let's continue on. I'll answer that one. Malachi, what is the name? This is from Ethan W0406. $5 Malachi, what is the name of a published paper university research project that tested and confirmed the curvature of the earth? Please drop a specific link. Or be specific or drop a link. You want me to do that now? I can just go and find one. I mean, they're not hard to find. Well, that seems like a waste of everyone's time. Again, if you really want to have that conversation, how about you just jump into the modern day debate discord at ping me and we can go over throwing pieces of papers at each other? Yeah, do you want to tell everybody what your discord handle is? In a world. That's Malachi. Satellites must be messing up. Sorry. Yeah. What was your discord handle? Sorry. Malachi. Oh, OK. I thought there was like a whole thing that you have to look up. But yeah, sorry. Nope. That's Malachi. Just at ping me in one of the chats. I don't I don't really do like a lot of socials or anything like that. Like I said, I'm not on here to like make money or anything like that. I'm just on here to have conversations and I really enjoy them. So at ping me. I made money here. Hey, I'm going to you're still reading chats to him. Right. So I'm going to step away and run to the bathroom real quick. Hey, you know, I'm all good with that. Yeah. Grab yourself a drink. Do whatever you need to do, buddy. We'll Austin stepping out for a minute. So we're going to keep asking a few questions to Malachi here and Malachi as well to yourself if you need to use the washroom or get a drink or anything like that at any time. That's fine. We can keep rolling. So run Boston bear. Malachi people in the chat may tell you Austin myself are or all true. Earthers are lying when the truth is the lie has already been propagated for hundreds of years. There is no globe Earth except in the minds of men. That doesn't sound like a question. It sounds like an exposition. But so to like, to kind of respond to it, like, this has only really come up incredibly recently, right? That there was no flat Earthers for a very long time. Until like, I think probably like 2012, I guess this stuff started to get a little bit more popular.  Right. Like I actually created a new Gmail account and went on to YouTube and it immediately started sending me because I'm like a mid 30s year old white guy who was in the, in the military for a while. And immediately started sending me towards like all this alt-right craziness and flatter stuff. So yeah, I just, I mean, I blame the recent popularity and all this on, on basically like YouTube algorithms and people feeling depressed down and wanting to seek some sort of like a higher power or some sort of like knowledge, special knowledge that I think is, is going to help them. All right, gotcha. And all right, looks like a little bit that's coming back. Malachi into the break for $1.99 Malachi. What do you think science is? I mean, these questions are getting a little condescending in my opinion. So I don't need to answer that. Just open a book, check out the word science, see the, see the definition and we're probably on the same page. The etymology of sciences to know it's the pursuit of knowledge. Natural science has a very specific set of parameters called scientific method, which we discussed. The answer. All right, well, let's continue on there. So I'm just going to make sure. Ryan for $10, you know, I can censor some of this because he's got a little bit, he's coming at you a little bit, so I don't know how much you want me to censor that, but it says Malachi clearly hasn't looked into any of the flat earth or arguments. Flat earth, there's no more about the globe model than globers. Also, there is video evidence of harness, harnesses being used. Okay, so to respond to that. So first off, I don't actually look into this topic all that much. I just, there was an opening and I wanted to have the chat. So that's why I'm here. I'm really more of a philosophy guy and social sciences guy, which is the direction. It was like each piece of cognitive is not only amazing and capable of like, this is my internet connection is unstable. Hold on. Am I good? You're back. Yeah. Okay. It seems like a big piece of cognitive distance that NASA is not only like able to create all these like web of lies to deceive everyone, but they're also incredibly bad at doing like just basic video editing.  It's super hard to do that, bro. That's really not. Yetis. Yetis. Like gravity, post edited for months, try to do something live is very difficult. You ask why would they do it live? It convinced people it's legit. Verify it's a live transmission. But you have no way to verify that it's a live transmission though. They could just broadcast it at some other time. And if you don't think that the satellite is up there, you can't even like find out where the satellite is that's broadcasting it. That's a decent point of this self defeating. Well, you can tell if you can tell on the surface of the transmissions live. I mean, could they fake that? Sure. In theory now you're the conspiracy theorist. So I don't know. Let's continue on hot dogs for sale. Oh, yes. Hot dogs. Give me some five dollars. Mal, please explain how the earth's iron core is 5200 Celsius and can generate the planet's magnetic field with curie temperature of iron is 770 Celsius. Okay. There's a really cool movie called the core had air neck card in it. They kind of go over that. You can just go watch that. Thanks. Harvard and Stanford. This isn't like it doesn't matter. Right.  And they're going to spin it around. And like this is, to me, this is such a non issue.  And instead of, instead of doing that, they're, they're trying to pretend that they have some sort of access to secret and powerful knowledge. And it's just, it's a very strange thing. Or maybe they're right. Yeah. That's possible too. I just don't see it. Yeah. You have to look into it to see something, huh? All right. Well, let's continue on. Let's see if I got any other ones here for you, Malachi. Any Purdue $5 Malachi. Flat Earthers always seemed not for real. If I genuinely believed in half of it, I would be seriously, I would be seriously be unable to function, even eat. That's interesting because I kind of said the opposite today was like, you don't, like there are people that believe in the flat earth that you will, like you might even know these people and they will never, they'll never come up, right?  Like it's, it's really like you can't tell for the most part. It's only when you press these people on some very specific topics and they start to like show their crazy colors. I want to point out to you real fast. Let me say this. It actually has very deep philosophical implications, which is why I'm perplexed as to why you haven't, maybe you're not interested because you haven't put that part together. Maybe it's a better way to say has very deep philosophical implications, even just with like the Copernican principle itself, which says the earth doesn't occupy a special or unique position or tiny speck of dust in the universe. So big. It's a logical to think that we'd be special and we're flying through space. And if yours is in the center, it does have a special and unique position. Those are philosophically and diametrically opposed, right? So that's, that's a huge philosophical implication. I mean, that's like life altering all like difference, right? So, no. Oh, sorry. I thought you were done. No, it's not right. So, no. So like if we were the center of the universe, that only makes any sort of interesting sense if the center is some place of superiority, which it's not. There's no reason that the center of things is any more important than some being located on the outside fringe of things. Like it doesn't make any sense to think that that's important. But everything would be moving around. Like what is the implication that if we were the center of the universe, what does that matter? Well, that means that everything in the cosmos is moving around the earth. So that is a, that means it's a unique and special position. If the earth is in the center of everything that exists, that can be observed, then who put it there? Like, like, is there any logical. Now you want to pin, you want to immediately straw me as I believe in flat earth because I'm religious.  I think religion is the death of knowledge. So we can go ahead and get out of that. Well, I'm not some really, I don't believe the earth's flat. And it's not because of religion. My point is logically speaking, if you say, oh, well, there was a big bang and there's a million miles in all directions.  Eventually you have crazy odds. The earth is in the center of everything that exists. Can't really just chalk it up to chaotic happenstance and odds. It's in the centers. Like so it requires direct intention and determination to place it in the central position. So it is philosophically significant. I mean, I could know you, Edwin Hubble and Stephen Hawking and I sign agree with me on that. So. Yeah, that's great. I'm glad that they agree with you. The point is, no, it's not significant. If the earth was center to everything, it would only be significant if you apply significance to it, which there has to be a center of the universe. I don't think that there's anything particularly special there. I think it's the point at which the big bang and expansion happened. Probably, I mean, you don't know it could have happened at different rates in different parts of space. And so maybe the center isn't where we thought it was at all. But again, this isn't like you operate your day without thinking about the center of the universe.  So the idea that this comes up a lot is it's not true. I'm saying it would mean that it required intention. Like, no, it doesn't though. It doesn't require intention. Something has to be at the center. So no matter what that thing is, why is that intentionally placed there?  Like, there is no big bang with the earth in the center. And the current model claims there is no center. It claims that everywhere you're at will look like the center. The earth looks like it's the center with all evidence ever, but it's just an illusion because everywhere looks like the center. And there is no center, but because the evidence shows that we're in the center. So they had to say, well, it looks like that, but it's a stubbornly thinking. If the earth in the center of everything that exists, one could logically include some type of intention had to put it there, but I guess we can agree to disagree. I mean. Okay. All right. Well, this looks like a good time to inject with, I got a few questions that are kind of for both of you. And we're going to try to hammer those ones first and then Austin, if you're good to hang out and answer some of the rest of these super chats if you're able to and, you know, have any back and forth that you want to have about this. So as for the ones that are for both of you, as Zion talks, our good friend of the show, $2. What point is earth center? How do you know it? If the earth in the center, how do you know it? That's the question. Well, I don't know if he's asking exactly like, what point is the earth center? Like maybe he's asking, like, what is the point of that? Like, I think it kind of touched me, but maybe maybe he's also talking about like physically, like where would be the center of the earth? I don't know. We can kind of go down both of those. So if you'd like. Seemingly towards the north pole, you know, you can't privately and freely explore within 500 miles of each direction of that either. And actually there's something called the distant warning system, the distant early warning system founded in 57 coincidentally and already treated years later. Now it's a north warning system long story short, anyone that goes past 55 degrees north, it hits a trip line that the military has admittedly and they start monitoring you. You're not allowed to go to the center. There are excuses that it's dangerous and it's too close to opposing geopolitical interests or whatever. So that suspect, but that would seemingly be where the center is because everything moves around the earth. What would be the evidence for us being in the center? Literally that everything moves around the earth. The current model says it looks like everything moves around the earth. That's an illusion. First they say it's because the earth spinning, but when we look out further in space, it'll show that everything's moving chaotically in all directions. Then they found out that wasn't true. Even the distant galaxies are moving directly relative to the earth. That's when Hubble was like, well, what's going on? Then they came up with the accelerative expansion theory, the idea that if you blow up a balloon everywhere is going to look like it's in the center.  So anyway, long story short, all the evidence that we observe in the sky shows that the earth's in the center. The heliocentric model agrees with this. They say it's just an illusion. It's called relativistic principle, specifically the equivalence principle. It's equally valid to say that the earth's in the center and the sun moves around us or vice versa. They say that it's just an illusion that all evidence makes it look like we're in the center. So my position obviously is all the empirical evidence looks like we're in the center because we are and we're not moving. Alright, any thoughts on that, Malachi? No, no. Well covered. Thanks. Alrighty. Let's see if we got any of the ones that are for the two of you. Run Boston Bear. Yeah, you can check out in the field on my channel. I like to bring on physicists and astrophysicists and astronomers so that you can have respectful disagreement about the level of intellectual discussion. When it comes down to it, they basically all can see there's no actual evidence that we're moving around the sun. It's just a philosophical interpretation. It's weird. Okay. Any thoughts on that, Malachi? I didn't think that was to me. I'm not trying to discredit Austin on what he knows. I think he's done a lot of work here. And I think that he does a lot of very interesting inquiry. I just think that he gets it the wrong conclusion. Alright. Justin Bear, $5. The center of the universe is special because it's where everything began. Are beginnings in time not important to astronomy and science in general? I think that one's for you, Malachi. Yeah, where it began. Again, this is like, so first off, for this conversation, we're assuming that the Earth is the center or something like that, or that there is a center to the universe, which you would call like that at where, the point at which the big thing started. And to think that there's something special there is I think like science fiction, right? If you ever played No Man's Sky, right? You get to the center of the galaxy or something and there's like a portal. It's like, no, it's just where it began. It just has a locus and we're in a spatial, like, you know, we're in space. Something has to have had a locus. That's not that important. I don't really see the importance there. Okay. Any thoughts on that, Austin? Yeah, I mean, I already said it, bro. I just think if we're in the center of everything, as far as I can logically and philosophically deduce, some type of intention had to place it there, you know, and it has to be in the scene to order is engine certainly of that level. So if we're in the center of everything, who put it there is the question and the pretty logical one according to all philosophers throughout all of history. So I'd be curious as to why you say who and at what. Yeah, sure. What, yeah, what, what intention put it there. That's fine. So, okay. So you're applying intention to like inanimate forces of nature to that. That's what I'm saying. Like to just say it's not a who or what. I have no problem with the lack of personalization because that kind of gets into like religion, right? Like, who did it? Let's describe who he is and stuff like that. And I, I don't like dogmatic religion. And I think it's man's in a attempt to explain the inexplicable in a way. Yeah. Intention does as far as we can comprehend intention is somewhat personified, right? So if you want to say it's energetic. Yeah. That's why I say who I can't interpret intention, not being a who, but that's just because we're, we're man. That's how we interpret intentions. Yeah. Yeah. I agree. We assign agency to, whenever you're talking about plans or intent, you have to have an agent to do it, right? Okay, cool. As far as we, as far as we can get. Alrighty. Well, let's continue one then. So jam key and jam next. Sorry, 06 499 Malachi. Thank you for your approach to this debate. It exposed a lot of ways BS can be complied, compiled. I think that's what they meant or, but it says complied and spread. Yeah. But what's, what's so like frustrating about this is I didn't want to be a flatter. They're so like, I get the idea, right? Like, and I think there's some truth to that, to be honest. Like people think if they discover something special, it makes them special. And like, they're the special boy. I know something you don't. And even frankly, a lot of fighters kind of carry themselves like that. But so do leftists and so do people out on the right. And everyone thinks they're special boys, but that's not what happened with me. I had to get talked into doing it, turned it down multiple times and lost six figures to do it. So I don't know. It's weird.  Like she wouldn't do that. I pay all the bills. I'm like, bruh video. She went to the bathroom in the club with dude. And you're like, I'm not looking at it. I know she wouldn't cheat on me.  But that's the thing about flat earth, bro. Once you look, you can't, you can't unsee it. And that's why you got suggestive flat earth at some point because the algorithms prioritize them because people fell down the rabbit hole, not because they wanted you to think the earth was flat. That's why they came in and censored it. So anyway, long story short, if you choose to look into it, bro, I promise it's, it's insane. It's insane how much you take for granted and you realize this is a house of cards. So it just depends on you can get past that first step. Yeah. So I just have a quick question and response. So like, what do you think about my unique position here? And anyone who's going into debate, this flatter thing that like, not only do I have pretty much no idea what sort of things you're going to bring up, but also flat earthers from, from the reading that I did, flat earthers have like all these competing things. They, they contradict each other all the time. Just like it. You cut out for a second there. That I cut out. Okay. I'm just, I'm trying to, I'm trying to gauge how you feel about my position here where. Even. Sorry, it's raining like crazy. Or to even have this conversation. Like, I want to know all that you're going to bring up. And then I'd have to like, try to go and debunk those in advance, but then you could bring up like pretty much anything. Cause that seems to be, like a bottomless pit that flat earthers can pull from. Like, what do you think about my position on that? Not like I, I get the aspect that we're talking about the earth. So it's like everything. So it's overwhelming. And yeah, like you, you can't be, no, no one that's not looked into it for a long time can be expected to like, answer every point of contention or something like that. But at the same time, it should be very easy to offer something. Like that. But at the same time, it should be very easy to offer sufficient. Exclusive evidence that the earth's a sphere. And that simply isn't the case. Sorry. Sorry. Again, my internet spotting. So it's like, it's not, it's not even that, right? It's not even that like, I could go through and like create these like arguments and stuff. It's just like. Like some, some, I've, I've ran into flat earthers that think that this like, I hear you're against religion, but I'm just bringing up an example to some flat earthers think that the way, the reason why the earth looks the way it does is because they're like biblical young earth, creational literalists that think that God put it here. Right. And it's like, I, that could have been where you were coming at in this debate. I don't know. Because there are so many people bringing up so many points. And most of which I think that you would actually disagree with. Like, how do you think from my perspective, how should I properly prepare for a discussion like this? Just like, test your own belief. What made everyone a flat earther was like, I'm going to go prove the globe and address this insanity that somehow has popped out of the internet in the 21st century. Go prove the globe. That's why people are flat earthers. You can't do it unless you lie to yourself about religious assumptions. But I don't really know many people that think the earth is flat because the Bible says so. They definitely exist, but not that many. There's a lot of people that discovered the earth is flat.  So I think that's a misrepresentation that happens that I can see from the outside why people would look at it like that, because they'll come to you and they'll be like, well, look what the Bible says. But from my experience, people find out about flat earth and they're like, I may have been a little dismissive about some of these ancient texts. So yeah, I think it's much more of the evidence and it's it requires kind of swallowing the pill that you're going to go verify your belief. Most people don't do that. It's easier not to do that, honestly. Like sometimes I think about what it'd be like if I didn't do that, but I think it would suck. Okay. Thank you. All right. All right. So we'll continue on there. Yeah. And then once again, Malachi, I don't know if you have a time crunch there or if it's just worried about the internet there cutting out on you. But sorry, it looks like you have something to say. Yeah, like when we're done with my questions, I'll be jumping off. I had to go. Okay. Yeah, that's no problem at all. Let me just double check here. I think that might be it for your questions. So yeah, if you have to jump out, that's all fine. So thanks for being here, Malachi. Give Malachi some love in the live chat there. Thank you to both of our speakers, of course. We have lots of more questions here for you, Austin. So if you're good to answer a few more for our live viewers here that want to hear from you, we're going to, you know, you're going to get to riff for a little bit if you'd like. So if that's good by you, we'll keep going. Yeah. Yeah. So real quick. Yeah. Just real quick. I'm going to jump off, but if you want to come and chat, we have our live chat. We'll be back after this weekend. So it's just a matter of time. We'll be back after this weekend. Awesome. So we're going to be back in a couple of days. It's going to be a lot of fun. Just talking about a lot of data that we've been talking about and that we're going to be talking about. And we're going to be doing a lot of other data bait. Discord. Pretty lively. There's people pretty much every day chatting about all sorts of different stuff. So you should jump on and just check out what's going on there. Awesome. Yeah, I hang out in there too. So thanks Malachi for being here and we'll see you next time man. Cheers, buddy. Hi, brother. All righty. lot of fun. We can try to move through them fairly quickly here if you want me to kind of put you like on a minute, you know, let your riff for a minute there and then we'll kind of get through them. So Tim Pryor, $5, ask Austin if he's ever going to give refutable flat earth evidence or if he's going to keep talking about the globe and NASA. Yeah, refutable flat earth evidence. Just give physical empirical measurement of earth curvature. You know, everything that you do that apparently does that is the assumption that the Earth's sphere is weird and it changes. And yeah, so we have physical empirical measurements that show the Earth is flat. And we have line of site horizontal propagation that shows you're at this flat. So if we falsify the radius value of the globe, which we have that falsifies the entire model, which is what I was hoping to talk to him about, but we never really got to it. So there you go. All right, let's continue on. Mojama, Jake, that's right on the cusp is 999. Witsit, when citing logical fallacies such as poisoning the well, intent matters. If you would stop assuming the worst intentions from people, you would have a lot more productive conversations. So basically what that super chat is saying is that I shouldn't call out the fallacies and assume that their intention is to not be fallacious. Whether or not they intend to be fallacious doesn't matter. They're being fallacious. And when you use something like poisoning the well, you are specifically intending to discredit the opponent by talking up, by trying to paint a picture that they're crazy. Austin thinks there were giants. Austin thinks the Illuminati exists. Austin thinks that the air is not going to kill him. And so when you jeopardize the person's credibility by preemptively discrediting them or painting a picture, it's called poisoning the well. Yeah, I call out fallacies because it's a huge blot, productive conversation, thus intellectual conclusion. I would love to never have to call out a fallacy. In fact, I may be called out 5% of them this debate. So it's an unfortunate sequence of events that occurs. All right, excellent. Thanks for answering that question there. Let's continue on. So Alexander L of $1.99. Thank you so much. Witsett is lying. You can explore Antarctica.  Yeah, but that's just objectively not true. So I just did a stream on my channel called Antarctica and we go through all the legal legislation and stipulations about traveling there and you have to give them what is it, three months in advance notice to get your journey approved. You also have to go through a 180 day advanced approval process as well separately. They can choose to deny you for any reason, you're not allowed to go to the middle of the continent. So that's not even allowed for the permit. Whenever you go through the environmental protection approval, it can cost anywhere from $250,000 to $2 million. This is all documented. I provide all the links on my YouTube. It's easily verifiable. You cannot privately and freely explore Antarctica. That's a fact. You're not allowed to go to the center of Antarctica. That's a fact. You can't bring water supply or fuel supply. And you can't go where you want to. You can go to one or two little areas on an approved guided tour. So that's highly suspect. When people don't approach that subject, honestly, I'm pretty sketched out. I find that suspect. All right, well, let's continue on. So true seeker 999. There are, it's like somebody's here just responding to you in a certain sense with these superchats. There are Arctic expeditions all the time. It has even crossed, has even been crossed solo saying nobody is allowed to explore there is a lie. But that's the claim, right? So to verify that you go to the actual north, you would just easily make a 90 degrees zenith observation of Polaris. That doesn't exist. It's 2023. And a zenith observation of Polaris doesn't exist. So in reality, what they say, despite what this guy just baselessly asserted in super chat, is that it's way too dangerous to go across the actual geographic north pole. And if there's not enough weapon or tower systems and relay systems to be able to properly save someone say something happened, it's way too dangerous. And because of geopolitical concerns of the of the surrounding countries like Russia and America right there surrounded by the north, or surrounding the north is basically a no fly zone. And then those in Northern England, Northern Greenland, we have an Air Force base specifically monitoring activity there. So I think that's also weird that people have to misrepresent and to go there. Alrighty, let's continue on there. And I and Horace, I do think that I may have gotten that question or I think that I asked one that was close enough that I kind of ticked off the two boxes there just because Malachi was on a bit of a time crunch. So if you go back about, you know, 20 minutes from now, I think you may have a slew of him answering questions there and you'll find what his response was. But of course, you can always hit him up in the discord there. He did drop his drop his discord there when before he left. So let's continue on can go $4411.  Is that true, Austin? Are you real? That's he just slide. Never ever did that dude look at this stream and see my hand go through a microphone. He just said that. Okay, but you can say it's because of transmission. That's a cool story. Does transmission make a an astronaut slowly fade away frame by frame? No, it doesn't. And you show me someone putting their hand through a microphone because of a glitch. That'd be cool. I can understand that you say that but there's all kinds of stuff that can't be explained with simple transmissions, like the astronaut fading away, the astronaut grabbing something that's not there. You know, I could easily just show them like so, whatever some people research it, some people will not. What can you do? All right, let's continue on there. True Seeker 1999. I will believe Flutter at the moment they provide a better predictive model than the current Heliocentric Glow model. That's all they need to do. The globe doesn't predict anything. You couldn't name one single thing that the globe predicts everything that people claim are globe predictions are actually post fictions. We made the observations. We made the model based on the observations that are reoccurring like the sky, where the stars go, the eclipses, the Sarah cycle, all of this is a reoccurring cycle. That's how we made the globe. Literally, the way we made the current globe model of the earth was by looking at the sky and making the model. So if the model matches the sky, that isn't a prediction. That's how it was made. The globe makes no predictions. In fact, some of the predictions that it does make a never work. For example, the redshift anomalies, or the supposed motion through space, or the geodynamo discrepancies, or the South Atlantic anomaly, or the dispersion of the magnetic field, or the in the asymmetrical nature of the magnetic field, blah, blah, blah, blah, the surface anomalies of seismology propagation, right, all kinds of things. Arrival discrepancies of seismology, there's all kinds of things that the globe makes a prediction about and doesn't work. We can make all kinds of predictions on a flutter. The earth's not going to move. I can shoot radio transmission super far horizontally, because there's nothing blocking it, because the earth is flat. Unless there's topographical obstruction, I can just send it out of our bodies of water easily. Oh, look at that. It happens. So flutter predictions happen all the time. Saying that the sky is going to do something is not a prediction. Flutter can answer every single one of those quote unquote predictions as well. This is basic logic stuff. This is what's so weird. All right, let's continue one. Alexander L $1 99 wits it prove you measure to the curve of the earth. Yeah, we tested the curve of the earth with things like long distance mirror flashes. So if you don't know how that works, you have a mirror, the light from the sun is going to hit the mirror, then you see a flash the military uses this so that they can identify different people at long distances, right? You can let someone know your position covertly, because no one else can see it unless you're in a direct line of sight with the person with the mirror. So you could I could be like, hey, look, I'm 20 miles across the lake to my fellow person in the military and no one will know, right? Because you have to be a directly line of sight to see it, because that light has to reflect it just the right angle so that you can see the flash. That's why they flash on and off, right? Because as the angle changes, so we can do this over many, many miles on the ground, you can literally put a mirror on the ground and shine it, there should be 100 feet of curvature of earth blocking it, you can see it across the lake over and over every time pretty much, there's boom, and it requires line of sight. You have to see the reflection. So we tested that's one of many ways. So we tested if there's curvature, the way we physically measure it is plain survey. That's what all maps are used. That's what all maps use. That's what all engineering uses. Plain survey data. That's how we measure the earth literally. That's the only way that we measure the earth. All right, well, let's continue on. Beams E $5 for what's it? You claimed that electrostatics explains everything. But how does a charge at rest create a force? There is no such thing as truly at rest when it comes to charge, right? Sure, it's called electrostatic because it's not in like, quantifiable motion, it stays in the same volume, right? But it's vibrating as vibrational resonance, it's in flux, it's never truly at rest. What what the force is generated from the electrostatic transference or induction of the medium and the objects. Of course, the object itself is held together by electrostatics. So that gives you compactness of matter. Okay, I'm going to take 20 seconds. So you have density, compactness of matter, i.e. how tightly the matter sell together. That's what density is, which means the cause of density is whatever holds the matter together with a certain compactness. That's electrostatics, electrostatics, all molecular and intermolecular tracking forces are electrostatic in nature. That's what holds the matter together. The reaction between that object in the medium is what causes it to go up or down intrinsically electrostatic downward electric current on the earth also sets the downward bias. This explains all things results in a buoyant force when it comes to a densier relationship. Everything's intrinsically electrostatic tend to the 36 power shrunk and gravity is claimed to be so there's the answer pretty simple. Alright, thanks for that, Austin. Let's carry on. Earth first space later $5. Austin can explain can explain how fluid statics and gas pressure natural laws prove a globe is impossible. Yeah, okay. So for one, fluid statics is water is level. Water at rest is level, find this level, right? So fluid dynamics is simply the process of water or fluid trying to find its equilibrium or its level states. So fluid statics is water at rest is level. And they say level is curved. But no, in reality, level is flat and horizontal. Now, yeah, of course, you could say equidistant above a certain convexity would be quote unquote level because it's all equal distance above. Little story, bro, water lays flat at rest fluid statics. And then you were saying something to the effect of basically like gas pressure. So yeah, the gas pressure would seek equilibrium, and we will increase second law of thermal dynamics. Everything is constantly in a process of seeking equilibrium and gas pressure would build the available space. Therefore, it's sitting adjacent to a vacuum is insane. And gradients just begs the question of X with delta X, which is gas pressure and change in gas pressure. So I'll by answer that. All right, sure thing. Let's continue on. Simon Allen, five euros. Just love modern day debate. Oh, thank you, Simon Allen. We love you too. Make sure everybody that you give us some love and hit that like button. And also, you know, even more importantly, share this out. You got a contentious space. You like to have juicy debates.  That's great. So we love you too. Emma Bronco, two euros. Hey, once again, we're sticking with the euros and get with it to show NASA videos. Okay, can I show what can I use my one minute j