Hey everybody, tonight we're debating Flat Earth versus Globerth, and we're starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. This is going to be a blast, folks. Happy New Year! We are excited to kick off 2021 with this epic debate, and want to let you know if it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we have many more juicy, controversial debates coming up. Also, want to let you know we're a neutral platform, so we take no stances ourselves, and we host debates on science, religion, and politics, and also a ton of other stuff. We just love debates, so with that, want to let you know a couple of housekeeping things up front. First, you will see on the right hand side of your screen we are pumped, you guys, as it's only a week away before we have the epic debate on whether or not Christianity is dangerous for society between Michael Shermer and Michael Jones pictured on the right side of your screen. This one is going to be big, you guys, and we want to let you know you are also seeing on the very far right of your screen, that is our Kickstarter, you could say, funding meter, and so we are very close. We are, I think, at about 81 percent. I am stoked, you guys, and so you might be wondering, well, how does this work with a Kickstarter? Very easy. It's simple as this. We, in 2021, want to take modern-day debate to the next level, so that means speakers from all over the place, and a lot of these speakers, you know, they are big-time people. I mean, Michael Shermer, New York Times bestseller, he's been on Joe Rogan experience, and a lot of, I mean, I could go on and on about his credentials. They have bigger honorariums sometimes, and so with a lot of debates, we can risk kind of like a smaller honorarium, like a lot of you, we don't mention it a lot during those actual debates, but a lot of debates, we have actual honorariums where we pay the speakers, for example, Matt, and we're happy to pay it, because we think that, you know, a worker is worth their wages, and at the same time, some of the honorariums get kind of big to where it's hard for me to take on that risk, or sometimes we'll take a loss, and it's like, well, we're OK because we have other super chats from other debates, or other ads kind of bringing in money from other debates that can cover for those small losses. But sometimes, like, the bigger losses, that's where it's like, ooh, we don't want to take too much of a risk, and so this Kickstarter, we think, is the future of modern day debate, because basically, people can, just for the price of $3, the price of a cup of coffee, you can watch this thing live, it's Friday, January 8th, and not only that, but your funding for this Kickstarter, you're going in with us, as we've already contributed money for this Kickstarter from modern day debate, but you're adding into it, makes this event actually happen, because we have to reach our goal and order for this event to happen.  So, highly encourage you to join in with us, as we are hoping that this summer, we are thinking that if this goes smooth this first time, which we are determined to make it so, we're going to use this for big time events, you guys. So, thank you so much for being here, though. We really do appreciate you, want to say we really do appreciate all of your support, you guys, both in terms of the Kickstarter and in general, the live chat has been just so positive lately, and I seriously appreciate you guys so much. So, seriously, shoot me an email. If there's anything, a way that I can serve you, make your day better, I'm at moderndaydebate at gmail.com. I try to get back to everybody, sometimes I'm slow, but with that, thank you all for being here. How this is going to work is our new friend Gek is going to get the ball rolling with his opening statement, then with it, we'll have his opening statement followed by open conversation. Both of our guests are linked in the description. What are you waiting for? If you want to hear more, you can hear more from our guests by clicking on those links. And this format is pretty flexible. So, as we mentioned, it's got those two openings, open conversation, Q&A. So, if you have a question fired into the old live chat, if you tag me with at moderndaydebate, it makes it easier for me to get every question in our Q&A list. Super chats are also an option. And with that, very excited, we are going to kick it over to Gek just to first say hello and thank you for being here, Gek. And what can people expect to find at your link in the description? Thanks for being here, Gek. Glad to be here, James. So, I work as a cybersecurity professional and work a lot in computer science. So, you'll find a lot of things related to cybersecurity, ethical hacking, and different tutorials on how to learn about that subject in field. You bet. Thanks so much. We're thrilled to have you, Gek. You have new perspectives. And so, it'll be a lot of fun. And with that, glad to have you back again. If you want to share what people can expect to find at your link, thanks for being here as well. Yeah, a little bit of everything, to be honest. But yeah, once it gets on YouTube, we just try to go live every night to talk about what's going on and what I call clown world. But yeah, if you can put your big boy pants on and listen to what I got to say or my theories, then yeah, it's a cool place to encourage you to come check it out. Juicy. OK, we are pumped, you guys. So, we are going to kick it off with Gek. I've got the clock set for you. And the floor is all yours. Thanks for being here. Oh, I need to share my presentation. Pardon me for not introducing you to this prior. Is that if you wave your cursor toward the bottom of the Zoom window, it'll have a green Share button. And then if you click that, and then on the window that has your PowerPoint, I can. It says Disabled for a participant. Oh, gosh, that's embarrassing. Sorry, I've got to change our settings. This is totally my fault. OK, Advanced Sharing Options. Who can share all participants? And then should be set now. Thanks for your patience. All right, all set so they can see your screen. And I'm going to fit it so it's perfect. And all right, perfectly set to screen. Thanks so much, Gek. All right, I'm happy to be here. Thanks for tuning in. So for me and my opening, I'm going to take this in a little different direction, a different approach. Doesn't make sense for the Earth to be flat. And before we talk about that, let's go back and define what exactly is science. There's a lot of anti-science. But science is used everywhere. Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of natural and social world, following a systematic methodology based on evidence. But what does that really mean? Well, where would you use science? Well, I think a lot of us have probably seen a Murder Mystery show before, right? Who doesn't love a good who done it? What happens in a murder case or murder trial? You gather evidence and then based off that evidence, you make a conclusion, right? And about who committed the murder. Well, we do that for everything and science encompasses a lot of different areas. So when we're doing this, we gather that evidence and we're using it to disprove or prove a hypothesis using the scientific method. So whenever we're trying to prove something, whether it be a murder trial or anything else we might observe in our natural world, we're first making some observations. We're thinking about interesting questions about why something is. Then we formulate our hypothesis, we develop some testable predictions, perform those experiments, and then based off those experiments, we record those observations. Then we may do the experiment over again and we may do it a lot of times to make sure we're getting the same result. But sometimes our results can be wrong. So here's an example. Bob has a Christmas tree store. He sells Christmas trees all year round. Now Bob wants to increase the sales of his Christmas trees. So Bob's hypothesis is he's going to spend $1,000 on Google ads to try and increase the sales of Christmas trees in the months of November and December. Now his sales end up being about 1,000 Christmas trees sold during the months of November and December. So then Bob compares this data to Christmas trees he sold in June and July. Bob only sold 100 Christmas trees in June and July with no advertising. So based off this, Bob concludes that advertising helped him sell more trees in November and December. But there's a flaw in Bob's experiment that he missed. Bob didn't take for account the Christmas season. That's why he's potentially sold more Christmas trees. Just like this, sometimes when we're doing independent experiments, we're not always set up in the proper way to perform an experiment and make sure we're controlling all of the variables. I've seen this experiment with a glass of water.  But there's additional variables in that test. There could be a breeze coming in from the window. The house may not be well insulated. We're not controlling all of the variables in the experiment. This is why it's important when you're talking about an experiment and you're gathering evidence that you're testing that evidence, right? If the very first piece of evidence was what you based anything off of a murder trial, a lot more people would be convicted. A lot of people are suspects and then based off evidence later, they no longer become suspects. This is the same way we need to look at other things we observe in science. So what is the evidence for the earth being a sphere? Well, we've had years, literally thousands of years that we've gathered evidence about this. We have pictures and videos, the moon and the stars and everything that we can observe in our solar system and universe with telescopes even binoculars on a good night. We can see that it is sphere like. So why would our own planet not be a sphere? If the things we observe and the evidence we have point to that direction, why would it not be that way? Here's the Gemini spacewalk from 1965. Here's a photograph. And I want to talk about computers back in 1965 because they looked a little different than they do today. In fact, this is what a computer looked like back in 1965. It took a lot of processing power just to do a very simple task. Computers were literally the size of rooms. The Apollo space missions were actually written on punch cards. They used punch cards for the computer programs. It took a lot of money. People wonder why the NASA space budget was so expensive. It takes a lot to program everything on a cue card and feed it into the machine. They actually had an issue with this where someone actually dropped the cards or the punch cards and they came out of order and it took several months to actually get all the cards back in order to make sure the program would run. Our computer systems weren't that sophisticated in the 1960s. So here's another image of Earth from 1968 and yet another one from 1972. This is before anyone even knew Photoshop existed, before that was even a thing. And of course we have live feeds of Earth directly from space. Is someone sitting there editing these live feeds 24 seven, somehow making up these images and recording them in a movie studio? Does that make sense? Is that logical? Is that profitable for some type of evil organization known as they to do that? I don't know if that makes sense and this leads me into conspiracy theories. And think of this again, just like in a conspiracy for murder or anything else that you need a good motive, right? Why would someone murder someone? The same can be said about our flat Earth theory. If we're all being lied to and this is some big elaborate hoax, what's the real motive? Who is really profiting off of this? Why is SpaceX devoting a lot of money into asteroid mining and potentially looking that as a future revenue generator, if asteroids don't exist or what we know about space doesn't actually exist. That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. When we talk about conspiracy theories, often there's little bits of truth but then there's a lot of conjecture and there's a leap of faith that's added. And that's normally how when you tell a lie, if you want someone to believe a lie, you introduce a little bit of truth and it makes it a whole lot more believable. So does it make sense for the Earth to be flat? Well, in Proverbs 1815, one of my favorite books, it says an intelligent heart acquires knowledge and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge. I think after 2,000 plus years of experimentation and evidence, this should be rather clear. Thank you very much. Stoked for that opening and stoked for yours as well. Whitsit, kicking it over to you. The floor is all yours. All right. I'll respond to a couple of things you said and then I have a couple of tabs pulled up on the screen sharing the second row, if that's cool. I took a couple of notes. So you brought up the murder trial, I guess, getting across the idea that you need evidence, I guess, murder investigations in general require evidence and then you tie that into science. Well, science is, of course, as it pertains to natural science, the study of the natural world, which is what we're discussing, you're making claims about the natural world. There's three constituent parts of a scientific experiment, right? So there's the dependent variable, the independent variable and the control variables, right? And so you have your independent variable, which is your presumed cause. After you have your dependent variable, your observable phenomena, your naturally occurring observable phenomena, you then have a presumed cause manipulated to verify a cause and effect relationship. You propose a hypothesis with a cause and effect relationship test. When it pertains to the globe earth model and this is never done, none of the core claims about the natural world in any way can stand up to the parameters of the scientific method or scientific experiment. It is actually nothing more than pseudoscience, falsely masquerading as science. So just to clear that up, it's going to be very relevant. NASA requires a lot of money and why would they invest money or tell you that they're investing money in asteroids if they didn't actually exist? Why, if they're lying, why would they tell you they need $60 million a day to send people on the ISS? That's, oh, I don't know, 252 miles in the air going 17,000 miles an hour with glitches. So to ask me the motivation of the intricacies of one's deceptions or lies is foolish, simply. And then that ties me into the ISS where you claim, I guess we have live streams of a curved earth from space, which of course we do not. And you can easily impose curvature. We saw that with the red bull jump. They told us he could see the curvature of earth from space. Then we sent high altitude balloons up, it's flat. And then that, and then of course, another grass Tyson, one of the mainstream scientific communicators comes down and says, oh no, you couldn't see the curvature from there. So to ask me how a lens could impose curvature when we know that's what they do, also isn't really gonna cut it as to evidence. So, all right, I'll screen share and break down kind of what the deal is. That's cool. All right, so I just pulled out a few tabs, right? We were all told that we live on a ball earth, one of the first things that we were ever told, right? I didn't really make sense to us at the time counterintuitive. Oh, we fall at the bottom, how's the water stick on there? Oh, gravity, what's that? It pulls us down. So anyway, we were all told this at a young age. We didn't fully understand it, but we of course trust the authority position of the teacher. She clearly knows more than us. She's older, right? In fact, we were all indoctrinated with this belief that we live on this ball. This is the default picture of the iPhone when it first came out. This is called the blue marble. And of course this was presented under the guise that it was a legitimate picture taken in entirety from space and put on literally the default wallpaper of all iPhones now the most popular phone in the world. So let's see what NASA themselves say about the blue marble. Well, of course this is the guy that did it, Robert Simmons and they themselves admit that it is nothing more than computer generated. What's the coolest thing you ever did as part of your job at Goddard, Robert Simmons?  So we did. The hard part was creating a flat map of the earth service with four months of satellite data, just high altitude compilations, certainly not in a medium that defies physics. Reto Stockley at the meteorology and climatology office did much of this work. Then we wrapped the flat map around a ball. Then we flattened wrapped the flat map around a ball. My part was integrating the surface, clouds and oceans to match people's expectations of how earth looks from space. So this has been literally telling you that the infamous picture we were all indoctrinated with is literally not real. It isn't the real picture, but you claimed in your opener that we went to the moon in the 70s, but of course this is in 2000s, we're getting shown cartoons put off as real. So simple premise to, I'm not gonna have the time, I'm trying to speed up a little bit here. Simple premise that we need to understand before we engage in this conversation is burden of proof. We should all know it. You make a positive claim, you have the burden of proof. Now, we're gonna go through this because this is one of the main things that I have glow earthers, if you will say to me often. So making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim. So shifting the burden of proof balance, okay? So making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim. That's what the glow earth model is doing. And of course, falsification is independent of replacement. The burden of proof is a legal and philosophical concept with differences in each domain in every debate. The burden of proof typically lies with the person making the claim, but it can also lie with the person denying a well-established fact or theory. This is what the people want to say is going on here. This is what glow earth proponents want to say is going on here. The problem is it isn't a well-established fact or theory. We can get into the intricacies of this. It's nothing more than sort of science. There is nothing scientific about it at all. It actually makes claims antithetical to all scientific evidence. So like other non-black and white issues, our instance is where this is clearly palatious and those which are not as clear. This is what you would say, I guess where typically your side says this is not as clear. It's very simple. What's the positive claims of the glow earth make? Well, they say that we're in a fabric of bending space time to concepts. So of course, conceptual abstractions cannot have physical properties. It's called a reification fallacy, but they say there's nothing to stare other than two concepts. Well, they bend and warp and dilate and have physical properties and we're in some fabric that isn't actually anything. They say that we spin a thousand miles per hour. They also make a very definitive shape, claim and size claim as to what the earth is. They say the earth is 71% water. Of course, we know that sea level is the level of the sea surface used in wrecking the height of geographical features such as sales and as a barometric standard. So we literally measure elevation above and assume the level of sea. They say it's 71% of the earth, but it's actually bending convexly around the exterior of a spinning object in a vacuum. Then of course, the way that they explain sea level is with a hypothetical model called geoid modeling, which is not used for anything other than to claim how water bends around an earth. Hypothetical model that coincides with mean sea level, which is again, just taking an average and bending it around a hypothetical ball over the oceans and continues in continental areas as an imaginary sea level surface defined by spirit level. And it says right over here, I'll tell you, right? The geoid is safe for the ocean surface would take under the influence of the gravity and rotation of earth alone, both presuppose replications, of course. If other influences such as tides or absent and winds, this surface is extended through the continents. So it's literally a hypothetical extension of sea level being curved through presuppose continents. And of course, the other primary basic claim against natural law that it makes is that we are in some infinitely expanding vacuum of 10 to the negative 17 tour where a pressurized system sits adjacent. This of course cannot happen because the necessary antecedent to gas pressure is a physical container. And that's the second law of thermodynamics entropy will increase. So this is just a baseless assertion that's no more coast science. It's actually pseudoscience. It's antithetical to natural, literally natural law. So what is the flatters positive claim? Since positive claims have the burden of fruit, we claim the earth is flat. It's a general description of the surface of the earth. Okay, and so we can support this. For one, you can't have specular reflections on a curved earth. This surface can not simply cannot project this as a specular reflection. Even the most minuscule convexity of this surface would not allow this. These are all over the place naturally occurring. We have star trails where we look up in the sky and we will actually see them moving two different directions in the same portion of the sky looking in the same direction. This can happen on the globe earth when they tell you that the reason the stars look like they're moving as well. They're not moving, but the globe is spinning a certain direction. They would have to move in one direction relative to your location on a sphere. We do not observe this. Here's another example. And of course, the most important part, they tell a certain size of the earth. So that means it has to be curved at a certain rate. We went out and tested this numerous times all over the place. Here's one of the many examples, which I see you smile, you've seen it. I do get it, it's quite infamous. Of course, this right here would acquire and necessitate rays of the earth be something that are like 264,000 miles. That's over a quarter million miles over the supposed distance to the moon. This can never have in falsification of the radius, falsifies the entire model. So very simply, yeah, we'll come back here to wrap it all up. You know, they told us that we live on a cartoon from a very young age. And the truth is the globe earth has a burden of proof making positive definitive assertions about the natural world. And it must empirically validate these with scientific evidence. And that's it. Thank you very much, Austin. We will kick it into open conversation, folks. I have a feeling this should be exciting. So, oh, well gentlemen, remember, just to keep it, you know, cordial. You guys are both pleasant fellows. And so the floor is all yours for this conversation. Let's see, you guys might be on mute. No, so, yeah. There you go. That's my response to you, man. Like I need some legitimate empirical evidence. I've been looking for about five years. I know it sounds crazy on the surface is what I thought, but we need some empirical evidence. So, I mean, I guess we could start it like this if you wanted to maybe to, so the audience can kind of get an idea where everyone's at. There's like, I can ask you a couple of questions if you're done answering them so we can gauge what you think maybe. There's no like right or wrong answers. It's just like questions that... I have some questions for you because it's kind of interesting. So, in your presentation, there's certain areas of science you seem to be very big on picking out descriptions and picking apart different words and meanings. So, what is your scale? For what areas of science are you like, well, the research they did is absolute, but the research that these scientists did, that's a collection of evidence because we're talking about science as a collection of evidence and experiments, these we're gonna throw all these out because they're wrong. So, what is your level of saying that this is right or this is wrong? And how do you determine that from your own conscientious bias of this is right because I believe this is right and this goes along with what I believe versus I believe the work that these scientists did. Well, I don't just blindly believe other people. So, if it was real science, that means that I can go out and verify it. It stands up to the critique of the methodology of science. So, that would be the short answer. If it's verifiable, if it's empirical, so repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable, I can go do that. It's practical. I can practically demonstrate and have access to verifying or falsifying a claim and that's cool. That's what science actually is. My issue in contention is you take the first step, which is the dependent variable, the naturally occurring phenomenon is the very first step and then that's all that they have. They run off with just that, just that alone and then they make up stories. So, we see something happen in the sky. They have that and they're like, okay, now presupposing the earth's a vacuum that defies the natural law that we just ignore and all these sizes and all these claims, now we can make up stories about lights in the sky. Well, that's actually pseudoscience. You didn't manipulate any calls. You make up calls, claims of movement and mechanism claims. So, the point is we have to actually be able to verify things empirically and when we go out and try to empirically verify if the earth is curving, it isn't. And that's technically a measurement question, not a science question, but the globe earth makes scientific claims and there's no scientific evidence. So, simply I'm not impressed with the lab code and goggles but I need like an actual empirical means of verifiability.  You wanna do your own experiment and verify the information. You are not going to trust what other people do, but the very foundation of how technology is built is based on things other people did and trusting that other people built it. In fact, the communication mechanism we're using right now was built on literally hundreds of years. The very first computers were conceptualized in the 1800s for technology. So, what areas are- My phone. So, I didn't mean after you got good. Oh no, I was gonna say you're, so there's certain areas that in science, right, because we use it every day, right? We use it for facilitation, communication. We use credit cards. This is all things that have built up over a number of years and there's not like we can point to like one person who is making up stories or anything. This is why there's scientific consensus. You have a lot of different people involved in order to reduce the chance of things being introduced that just don't make sense, right? That science is not verified. That's why you have so many different people involved because the more people you have involved if this is an overarching conspiracy theory, the more people you would have that would reveal something. The more people you have involved in any kind of conspiracy plot, the more you'll have a Judas that will go and tell on what's happening and betray the- You seem to have a misconception, bro. You seem to have a misconception of how many people are involved in this. I don't, there aren't that many people that would need to know. Most of the people that work at NASA would need to know. They sit there and interpret data on their computer and they're just looking at temperature recordings. And then the next guy sits in his computer, compartmentalization. The teacher didn't know that the earth is in a globe that defies physics and that the story was brought to her by Jesuit priests. She didn't know that. She just told me what she believed. So that's a strawman. No flat earther thinks that there's millions of people keeping the secrets. And that's completely unnecessary, not how it works at all. Compartmentalization within the military alone wouldn't allow that. And so it's very simple. Most people believe the lie and then they, you know, by deduction continue it on with conviction even. So then who is this group of people that's keeping the lie? Cause NASA's not the only space agency in the world. And a lot of this, the scientific evidence had been built up by various organizations over a hundred years now from these different areas. Real science was blown out the window because of helium centrism, including the father heads of electrical field theory, Nikola Tesla, Oliver, heavy side, Faraday, Maxwell, Charles, Proto Steinmetz. They all knew that, for example, there was some type of a background, but it's no, the earth spinning and revolving. We have to throw out the background. Science has done nothing but devolve because of a devotion to helium centrism. And what comes with it is antithetical to science. So we have general relativity where they say concepts spin as a reaction to Michael Somarly, which is a little bit technical and stuff there. But the point is actually science has done nothing but derailed and devolved. They interpret everything through a materialistic confinement because we know there's nothing beyond the material world other than concepts, space and time. And so now that quantum physics thinks everything has to be material, trying to quantify them, it doesn't do anything to help. Real pursuit of knowledge, it only hinders it because of the confinement of presuppositions. So to get down to the crux of the issue, we need to go out and test the earth itself.  I don't need to determine how many times they've lied or not. I don't need to determine who is lying. That's basically your question. Who is this day? I don't need to know that. You brought up a murder earlier. That's a perfect analogy, right? If Susan, my neighbor, is the nicest girl ever. Everyone loves her. She's super nice. And then all of a sudden she dies and someone clearly killed her. The cops don't go there and say, well, there's clearly tons of shots that hit Susan and she's dead, but she's so nice. I can't imagine that anyone would do this. So until I come to figure out who would ever do this or I don't know why they would do this, then I don't seem to look at the evidence, right? We don't know. We have to just look at the evidence and then we can go from there. Fossification is independent of replacements and the fact the evidence is independent of motive. See, there's certain evidence that you'll outright reject. So do you say that all photos and videos from space, they're all false, that someone has edited them? And then how do you explain that from the 1960 and 1970s? So you talked about him stitching those photos together. If I have a photo of myself and I had a red eye and I removed the red eye, does that mean the photo is a cartoon or does that mean it was digitally edited because the resolution of cameras back then were terrible in the 60s and 70s compared to what they are today? I think if we're taking the concepts of the technology we have today and comparing it to the 60s and 70s, that's a bit of a misnomer because the technology we had back then was not as sophisticated as what we have now. Yeah, yeah, we can't go back and we destroy the technology as a painful process to build it back and you even set it up and we had huge rooms that we had to use to even use computers and now my phone is more powerful than a whole warehouse but we can't go back to the moon. Don't worry about that. But we went in the 60s, I promise, and we took a real picture but we went like decades without showing you another real picture. Then they came out and admitted that the pictures they show us are cartoons. So what you're doing right now is constantly appealing to the authority of the government, singularly NASA. And I don't wanna do that. So if we wanna get into the meat and potatoes, we need to get to the evidence. Where's the empirical evidence? I showed you empirical evidence of the platters. I've been looking for evidence of the curvature of the earth for a super long time. And that's why I think that really I was saying a productive way to start this, we could be like, well, where exactly do you find yourself on this? Because the truth is most people just have a belief that this is true, right? Like, do you have any empirical verifiable evidence that you yourself can verify as real of the measurement of the curvature of the earth? No, you have just believed it. You've heard NASA and you believe it. Spin, believe it's no evidence. Space vacuum, believe it's no evidence. And so that's what we need to get to. Do you think you know you have some like verifiable empirical evidence for any of those claims that the earth's a ball with curvature, spinning in a vacuum, any of those three claims? And then we can get to the crux the issue. I've been looking for five years, there is no evidence. And all the evidence I go out and find and can verify myself, disproves their claims. And we have gas pressure on earth and they claim it's in a vacuum. So we got some issues that we need addressed. And if we're being intellectually honest, we're gonna have to find some empirical evidence. I mean, if the earth's a globe and it's a primitive archaic idea, a question that it could be flat, it should be a slam dunk debate. Debates wouldn't even exist. So we should have some empirical evidence. Can you think of any, you can pick any of the core claims of the globe or if we do, that's why I covered the burden of proof, right, the globe earth has the burden of proof. So I'd like to talk about, again, you made this point about technology and that's where I live and work. So you said, why can't we go back to technology that we had in the 60s and 70s? Well, the technology we have today isn't compatible with what we used in the 60s and 70s because we used vacuum tubes in the 60s and 70s. We don't use vacuum tubes anymore. In fact, we use central processing units and silicon. So the technology that we had back then is very different from the technology we have today, which is why you would have to rebuild it from scratch. In fact, this happens in software development all the time. In fact, technology you were using three years ago, it's often better to rewrite an entire programming application than it is to try and take old programming or old code and reuse it. So the same case could be said for anything that was done, especially written in the 60s are used. Like we wouldn't want to use punch cards today to program something that a rocket that goes to the moon. Yeah, I feel you on that, bro. But again, what you're doing to me is you're arguing to me a story, you believe. You're arguing to me the logical framework of how you could explain a story that you believe. I don't believe the story, dude. I don't believe that we went to space in 1969, eight years after JFK said we were gonna go to the whole world. We're gonna be the first people to go to space in eight years and we couldn't go to Low Earth Orbit the seventh year. One of the main guys that was supposed to go hung a limit on the main module saying, we can't even communicate in the same building. We'll never go. Then he blows up in a routine checking of wires. He's gone. They magically go all of a sudden in the eighth year and the frequent president calls them. And so the moon landing, I'm not, I don't believe propaganda stories from the sixties. I want some physical empirical evidence. It's 2020. I should have a 4K livestream of the Earth in entirety every single night and I should be able to zoom in on it live time. I should be able to see rockets re-enter the atmosphere a thousand times, not one time in the history of mankind have we ever been shown a supposed rocket re-entering the atmosphere. It's 2020, bro. They're lying. And we have to go prove it. And so we need to get to the crux, bro. Do you agree that we need to see is the surface of the Earth actually curving in all directions or is it flat? That's the only way we're gonna get to it. I think we've already seen it. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. No, you're good, bro. I think we've already seen it. So we have videos, we have live streams, we have satellites that can take pictures of Earth and my burden of proof, and from a technological side of it, what I'm trying to understand is how you hand wave dismiss that because there's a lot of technological science and evidence that goes into those devices to make them do what they do. And there's a lot of monetary value that has gone in to making sure those systems like satellites and global positioning work the way they do. Yeah, but they can use high altitude balloons, bro. Like for example, they were trying to get internet in a remote location a couple of years ago and what they did was they put up a whole bunch of balloons. Now, if we have satellites flying all over the place, why would we have to do that though? We have satellites flying all over the place and then NASA admits they still put balloons up as early as the 50s, they didn't put balloons up. Did you know that NASA is the number one purchaser of helium in the whole world and they buy 90% of the world's helium? So that once again, vaguely opponents the idea of satellites, most of them are claimed to be geostationary anyway, which means effectively they're not moving unless you just believe that it feels like we're not moving, but we are moving. So there is no satellites, again, this comes back to we have to measure the earth because if they were getting in gravitational orbit, you need what's called the radius of orbit, which means you would have to know the radius of the earth. So if the radius of the earth claim of 3959 miles is wrong, they did not go to space, my man. It would be literally impossible, you couldn't. So we need to figure out if that value is correct. It's the most efficient way to verify or falsify this globe Earth model. It's not just believing in stories, bro. So do you think we use satellites for internet? Because mainly there is satellite internet, but generally we don't, because we use- 99% of all transmissions are used with towers and underground cables and wires and undersea cables. Correct, and do you know why that is? Because there is no magic space medium where you can just send satellites up in there and the most efficient way to transmit things is not too high off the ground with horizontal propagation. So the satellites mean nothing. And in fact, it's declassified that high altitude balloons are really the most efficient surveillance methodology that the government uses, military uses, so. Seems weird. It's actually because of the latency, but it's because if you have satellite internet, which is available, you can go and purchase it. The latency is several hundred milliseconds to get back. So if you tried watching a YouTube video, for example, it wouldn't work very well at all because it has to go up to the satellite, the radio waves have to travel, and then they have to come back. And you can get it and test it for yourself. They're going to a high altitude balloon, dude. Or there's actually, there's an amphibian balloon, there's something called magnetic levitation and an electro-graphitic propulsion and quantum locking magnetic levitation. There's numerous different things you could do actually to have self-sustainable flight. We've been lied to by about pretty much everything. So as to making definitive claims, I mean, it may seem crazy to me that I'm saying, well, they could have something that can self-sustain itself and just be up there and float basically, but we're told that they actually free fall around on earth that spins in a vacuum. So to, you know, I can prove quantum locking. You can actually practically demonstrate it. You can levitate things with magnetism. So I don't know what's up there, but I don't have to make claims, falsifications and a pen of replacement. What they told me isn't true. When they claim that the RSS is 252 miles up there, it can't be because that's a medium that defies natural law. I just want to stick with what I can prove, dude. I do not believe government stories, bro. We can't. They set up a whole Vietnam war with the library. Like we need to verify things ourselves, don't you agree? I think being a skeptic is very good. And I think verifying things for yourself is good, but there's a certain thing where you can't do everything yourself. Not everyone can be an expert in everything and not everyone can spend years on an entire subject. When you talk about medicine and the different advances in technology, being a technologist myself, I could not build and program everything or every program myself without additional libraries to do it. It would just take years for it to happen. In fact, this happened back in the 90s because technology, there wasn't a lot of frameworks. Everyone was trying to build things themselves and it took way too long to get to market. And we had a technology crash. Everyone wanted to do these cool things, but they were building them all from scratch. That's why we build frameworks around things. The same thing can be said about science. Things build on each other. So when we talk about, you know, satellites and what's being used there and the videos and the photos, I think there is more of a faith thing that those are all fake and that there is some government conspiracy to hide these air balloons and whatnot and magnetic type of devices that are holding themselves up. Is that not a faith thing? Because there's not any evidence of that. I see what you're saying, but maybe if you look at it from the outside, it would seem like that. But no, because what it comes down to is when you go look at all the empirical things that we can verify, they're all antithetical to what they claim. So now we're left with only what you're describing, which is pictures. And dude, I've seen high definition pictures of freaking Matthew McConaughey in space, bro. So like, when it comes down to it, that cannot be like the sole thing that I hinge my whole worldview on, a governmental agency, so many pictures that they've admitted they can prove to be fake and pass off as real. They were the background side phones. Everyone thought it was a real picture. Like no one knew it wasn't real. You have to go find that. And so to me, that's just foolish to believe them. And so like there's one thing right now, this dismantles the whole heliocentric model. We have gas pressure on earth. How do we have gas pressure on earth? The necessary antecedent to gas pressure is a container. Gas pressure is the energy or force exerted on the walls of a container. So they collide with themselves, elastic collisions and they hit the container. So if we have gas pressure on earth and we're spinning actually going 11 vectors inside of a vacuum that's ever expending at 10 to negative 14 or 10 to the negative 17 tour right beside the pressurized system with no container, how do we have gas pressure, bro? That gas pressure would immediately migrate. It's the second law of thermodynamics. It would immediately seek equilibrium. So how do we have gas pressure on earth? What's containing the gas pressure that they say is encompassed in a vacuum? And I've seen you talk about this before with the second law of thermodynamics and the gas pressure and trying it to be next to a vacuum.  So I don't wanna go down that path because I think that's already been beaten to death. Vacuum doesn't suck, right?  The atmosphere would fill the vacuum it would go into the vacuum. But I would actually point out to the recent evidence and you probably wouldn't believe this because it's from NASA, but it was the study about how the air molecules slowly get further away and that it actually extends out past the moon. So there is particles of air but when we discover new things in science, it's okay for us to change our understanding of what we had before. And that's perfectly fine because we need to verify those things. Would that mean that what you had before was wrong then? Right? Cause you had to change it. So that means what you had before was wrong. So it was wrong until just a couple of years ago. There's still- But it's not black and white though either because Pluto's no longer classified as a planet but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's just a light in the sky though just like the other planets. And the etymology of our planet means wonderer. And when I look at them, they're not static dude. They move under telescopes MP 900. So I don't have to believe their stories of what they say, bro. Like I just want to know why do we... What's contained in the gas pressure? Like that's how we live, dude. So how do we have gas pressure here on Earth in a vacuum? I don't get it. I'm not an expert on gas pressure. So I'm not going to speak to that and say something that I'm not familiar with. They're not- What I can say and as a technologist again going back to the things that we're able to see, study, test and observe I'm still trying to understand how because you've said you've seen pictures and you've seen videos and that you think they're all fake or they're all movies. And I'm trying to understand how the cost because NASA's budget alone would not afford for them to have, I think it's improbable that they would just be a movie studio constantly making movies all the time about this fake space. $1 billion a day, bro. $60 billion. Right, but I mean healthcare.gov costs 1.7 billion, right? So if we want to get into numbers about what things cost, things are expensive, especially million dollar rockets. Like rockets are super expensive. The rockets are parabolic, bro. They don't even go all the way.  Everything they do is sketchy. We have to move on past NASA, bro. I don't believe the government. They started the Vietnam War with a false flag and they've come out and admitted it now. So like I don't, can we not verify it ourselves? You can't have gas pressure without a container. I agree, you said you may not know, but the official explanation of your model is gravity contains the gas pressure, okay? And that gravity is relative to the center of mass and that it's stronger as proportionately close to the center of mass. And so if I take gas at the surface where supposedly the strongest, it goes in all directions instantaneously, seeking equilibrium omnidirectionally where the grads of gravity is the strongest. If I go hundreds of miles up where it's way weaker, gas does not all of a sudden get contained because gravity cuts back on and contains it. It doesn't make any sense. Gravity has a singular vector of down and relative to the center of mass, but of course gas has omnidirectional vectors. So it doesn't work. It's a claim against natural. This isn't something we can just breeze past because it's not like this is my opinion. It's a natural law and natural laws for anyone that doesn't know in the audience, right? It's not like we came up with it or something it's like they just are, right? We don't have to explain a causal agent. They just are their natural laws. So we got to deal with that, bro. You're making a natural claim about the natural world and it's actually antithetical to natural law. Like that can't just be left to fly, right? What do you mean?  So if we're talking about so specifically, and I know you're on the gas issue with pressure, so you have a hypothesis that it wouldn't exist if you went up that far. So based off that claim, if you saw a video or something from space, and again, it wasn't happening, you would say that's not true because I don't think that's possible for that to happen. Is that correct? What I'm saying is that the claim that's literally the opposite of natural law, there would have to be a container next to a vacuum. That's all I'm saying. Everything you brought up is just appealing to NASA, dude, but we can move on. Like if you said you conceded, you don't know too much about gas, that's cool, that's just one of them. Like what about the curvature part? This is something we can all understand. You don't have to be an expert in anything. We go out and we see the horizon, it's horizontal. We see the sun is set on the horizontal earth. Everywhere we go, planes, buildings, doesn't matter. Go out to the ocean, doesn't matter where you go. High altitude balloons 120,000 feet, it's flat. That's what horizon means. It comes from the word horizontal. So can we find some evidence of the earth curving? Because if it's curving at the rate they said it is, which it has to because they said the earth was a certain size, we should be able to find it, bro. If the earth is curving away from you in all directions, you would find it based on a geometric rate, based on the radius. So it would have to be there. And it's not anywhere, dude. Not in my homies in Cali, don't see it. I don't find it in Tennessee. My homies on the East Coast don't find it. People in the UK don't find it. It's not curving anywhere. And so if the surface of the earth isn't curving anywhere, what would it be? Well, we literally have, again, pictures and videos from space. And everything we see and observe, does the moon not look like a sphere to you? Hmm, the moon, that's a whole, that's a whole another thing. So... Or the sun or any other astronomical body that you examine with a telescope or even high level binoculars nowadays. Yeah, they're orbs, yeah. The stars are, yeah, like the planets, they're lights in the sky just like the other stars or they look maybe a little different here and there and they all look different and they aren't static, they move. And then what's the sun and the moon? I don't make definitive claims as to what the sun and the moon are, but what your model wants me to believe is that they look like they're the same size in the sky, but they're not actually the same size in the sky. The sun's actually 400 times bigger than the moon. It's just a coincidence that it's also exactly 400 times further away so they look like they're the same size so we can have eclipses. Your model can't explain the moon. We have eclipses that can't happen on you. I don't have to make claims as to what the characteristics of the sun or moon are. I don't claim medium. I don't claim solidity. I don't claim sphericity, but if I go into a bar and see a pool table with pool balls on it, I can't then say that the pool table must also be a sphere, even if it was a sphere, which it actually doesn't appear to be one. So there's my answer to that. I mean, that's more of a globe Earth problem than anything in the moon. Well, I would think it would be a very big flat Earth problem because of everything you can see in the observable space is spherical or round. Why would Earth be the only thing that's not? Well, how can you prove? Wait, we only see one side of the moon though. How do you know it's spherical if we only see one side of it? How do you know there's another side? Well, it at least looks round. Oh, the circles are round, man. Penny's are round. The pizza's are round, man. Like it could be an orb. And even if it was a sphere, how would that prove what we're standing on as a sphere? If the surface isn't curving anywhere, how does that mean it's round just because the moon looks like a circle? Well, I'm saying if by deductive reasoning, everything we can observe with a telescope looks spherical in our observable universe or what we can see, then why would Earth be the only thing that's not? Well, for one, the Earth is geocentric. So it's the center of everything. So to think it was analogous or synonymous to everything else in the sky that moves over top of it would actually be pretty counterintuitive. The sky for all recordable history for thousands of years has come back around and started where it starts every year around the center, around the center of the Earth, over top of the center of the Earth. So why would I think the Earth is the same as the lights in the sky that move all central to the Earth? I mean, if everything is central to the Earth, I don't know, I don't make claims about what's in the sky. That's what got us in this mess was making theoretical. I wonder what took their claims, right? And we need to pump the brakes on that. Cause now people think they live on a ball that spins and they go out and they see the sun set but they gotta convince themselves, even though it doesn't feel like I'm moving and that sun looks like it's moving, the sun is still and I'm falling backwards. It's clown world. So you're basically saying, if we go out and measure the surface of the Earth and it isn't curving and we falsify the radius, that's the whole model. And it's no way it's curving cause we measured it's all over the Earth. We should throw all that out because the suns are the moons circle. And I can assume that maybe it has another side and it's a sphere. And if it is a sphere, why wouldn't the Earth be one too? We can't just throw out the evidence because of speculation, bro. That's not what I'm saying. There is a lot of tests that have been done that have led up over the last 100 plus years about the Earth being a sphere because eventually, if you go back far enough, the world did have a consensus that they thought the Earth was flat, right? And then after a lot of different experiments they came to the conclusion, the Earth might actually be a sphere. And then after several hundred years, and this is after, I think it was Aristotle and his experiment involving measuring shadows, he's like, huh, maybe the Earth isn't flat. We had a lot of other people that did the same thing, right? Maybe we can sail around if we're a sphere, sail around the Earth. So it's not like this idea came up overnight. Like all of a sudden someone said this, this is something that has been built upon for years. And I think it's kind of interesting because again, in the past, that was the idea that the Earth was the center of the universe. And more recently, now the sun is the center of the universe. So you're saying the sun is not the center and that everything revolves around the Earth. Now I would ask why. A lot to unpack there, bro, but I'll hit you with it. I'll hit you with it. Yeah, the idea would go around the sun and the sun's the center of everything. Helios, that tracks back to sun worship and the religion of worshiping the sun for literally Helios. In fact, it's the tidbit that'll probably make people spiral. The Statue of Liberty is identical to the ancient Statue of Helios. But anyway, so you brought up Aristotle and you brought up the shadows. It was actually Aristophanes. I'll give it to you though. It's fair enough he was a Greek dude, whatever supposedly. There's no primary documentation of the story at all, but literally there's no primary documentation, just like a sketchy secondhand source. But supposedly when out there stuck sticks in the ground, just kind of stepped it off and measured, and then looked at shadows and wells and assumed that the Earth was a ball. Then he assumed the sun was very, very distant and that the light rays were parallel. And then he took it reverse engineer the idea of a ball Earth. Of course, not assuming the Earth is really far away and has parallel rays and knowing that it's more local and it has divergent rays, which is all we ever observed like corpuscular rays. It works on both models. This was done like a couple thousand years ago or so. And then when you brought up Aristotle, but actually this is the crazy part. The globe Earth's actually origin was a religion. So we have like Platonism, Neoplatonism, the idea that the perfect shape is a sphere. A metaphysical premise that the perfect shape is a sphere. This comes from Plato. And then this is literally why they started saying, I think the Earth's a sphere. Then Aristotle proposed the idea that space is a privation. So it was also a metaphysical ontological premise. It was the idea of the opposite of form and matter being emptiness and nothingness and that's what space is. It's basically what they still run with today. Now you fast forward, a Jesuit Catholic priest actually proposed the Big Bang Theory, the idea of how all this universe came into being. And so when you track it back, actually the origin of all the postulations are metaphysical or religious and they have no empirical evidence. And now you fast forward to now you think, well surely we have the evidence. Now I may have started that way. Come on, no, we don't, dude. We literally don't. There isn't any empirical verifiable evidence of any of the core claims of the globe Earth. So we gotta be real here. We didn't lie, you didn't lie, your teacher didn't lie, but we were misinformed about where we live and we need empirical evidence if we're gonna stake our whole worldview on it, right? Well, so you're saying you were misinformed or people were misinformed, but again, we're back today. Who is they? You talk about the government a lot, but the government is just made up of people. And while there are certainly people in government have done shady things before, normally with a motive, normally for money or power, right? So are there key people in the government and they've been passing it down through the government for over a hundred years because normally people don't remain as those government officials for that long. And again, you said there weren't a lot of people involved in this. So at what point, and this is where the conspiracy really, it just doesn't seem to make sense for me that all the photos and video evidence and what does exist from a technological perspective that that's even possible. Well, basically the idea of being like, why would they lie? I don't know, we made a whole rap song about it. It's one of the main questions we get. I'm not, I feel you bro, that's the instinctive response. It is nothing, it's no like shade I'm throwing or anything, but I use this analogy. It's like, if I say you had a girlfriend and actually she was your fiancee, really pretty girl you had just engaged to her. And you were like in love with her, and your family loved her, you liked her, family everything was cool. And then I can't tell you, I was like, dude, I'm sorry, I got some bad news. I got a video of your girl cheating on you. Would you be like, no, there's no way Austin, she loves me. I don't know why she would lie. I don't believe she would ever do that to me. So until you can tell me why she would lie or exactly who the dude she was with is, I don't wanna see the evidence of the video. You would wanna see the evidence. And so all we're doing is pointing out the evidence. I can't definitively claim their motive. But I will tell you, when it comes to the heliocentric model specifically, predominantly it was the Catholic church, the Roman Catholic church. I mean, even the Big Bing theory was proposed by the Jesuit church, so the Jesuit priest. So yeah, I mean, Clown World confirmed, but it's predominantly in modern history, the Roman Catholic church. And this wasn't even accepted really until even being thought of accepted until early 1900s. This is very recent decision that people think the heiress of magic spending cartoon ball that defies physics. The Greeks were just a couple people, they were a minority. This happened in a hundred or maybe 150 years. So this is like a new thing that has happened. And we need to kind of, we need to get our act together. We don't live on them. Oh, and of course they said that what defensively sealed it was we went to the moon and took a picture of it and that proved it. So when you're asking like all these people that lie, they think it was proven at 69, bro. Like they're not lying, you know, they're just, they believe the lie. And some of us decided to go and test it. And so when we test it, we falsified the radius. There is no movement. So we got an issue, you know? Well, there's lots of independent tests that have been done, right? There's tests that have been done that have I've seen people with doing tests to debunk flat earthers, right? So going back, you can say you've done your own tests and people can say they've done their own tests. But the end of the day, the whole reason we have a scientific consensus is because it's very easy for one variable to be off in a test, right? You can do this same experiment potentially. And if you have one variable off, you can get a different result.  We would water various plants. And one plant actually grew taller when you gave it soda instead of water. Does that mean I should go out and make sure that I'm watering all my plants with soda because that one plant out of the test group happened to grow a little bit more? Or was that an anomaly? Well, that's likely to be an anomaly. So when we have more, when you're talking about statistically and we're looking at these experiments, we need more data points to be certain about anything. And when we're talking about data science, normally you need a minimum of 30 data points to even look at something with some margin of certainty. And the more data points you have, the better. But dude, data itself isn't science. Data is the quantification of different information. The data, the quantification isn't science. Measurement isn't science. It describes things. Science explains things. It's valuable. But you can't just say that that's the only evidence of something because it is not. It's different. Science explains things. And it actually manipulates a cause to prove things. So we just have, dude, the problem is like there's, how about this? We'll do this. Do you agree at the least that we should be able to agree on this for sure? It's like the default position, if you were to base it solely on your senses would be that the earth is flat and not moving. Like when you experience your life, you never feel moving. When I throw football up, it comes right back to me. When I see a sunset, the sun moves. I don't feel moving. I don't see curvature. The horizon's always horizontal. That's what the word means. So you would agree that on default position based on observable phenomena with our senses, we experience a stationary flatter. I would say that that would be something I would never think about, like living through life. And I think the majority of people don't go through life saying, man, I really wonder if the earth is flat or a sphere. I think it's more of a thing that people who want to get into details and look at that might look at or people that work in a specific field of science would look at that. But I think the debate for a lot of people is that over the evidence is overwhelmingly based off recent accounts in the last several hundred years that the earth is a spheroid, right? And that we're using satellites. We have video evidence and photos. And I know you don't like them. And you say that they are edited and don't exist. And my stance is that is technologically not possible from a computer. If you don't see the movie Gravity, bro, you know you know with $60 million a day when the military actually classifies information, right? They have technology at super events years before we know about it.  It's not even good. It's like not even that good of CGI. And that's actually that's they're smart. And they're like, if this was CG, if we were faking it, it'd be better than this. That's what Elon Musk even says if they say that like this was CGI, if we faked it, we'd have better CGI than that. It's not even good quality. But I can't, my point is, bro, you seem like a real cool guy, you know? I can't just like whistle past the evidence. For me, it just doesn't sit right. I can't be like, oh, well this mountain should be hidden by a mile of Earth curvature from 273 miles away or 225 miles away. And instead of it being hidden by a mile of Earth curvature, I can see the full mountain. And it's right where it's supposed to be. And I can do this numerous times throughout the year. And if it was flat, it'd be right there in front of me. That's where the mountain is. I can see the top mountain in the back of the range. It should be hidden by a mile of Earth curve. Or I can believe that, well, it's actually being loomed up one mile in the air and then stopping right where it needs to be flat. I can't just whistle past that, bro. I can't whistle past the black swan when you can repeat it and it falsifies the radius. Like I don't know exactly what the earth is. I don't make a definitive claim. I know what they told us is wrong, bro. And in the size that they told us is wrong, the shape they told us is wrong and it just defies physics. And what they told us is outside of us is wrong. And we are not spending 11 vectors through nothingness around the sun. The sky resets over top of us and it has for all of reportable history. And so like we, based on all empirical evidence, I asked you about the deep opposition because like you have to agree, that is a deep opposition. Now the important part is that means we have all the observations. So if you're gonna claim that it feels like I'm not moving, but I am moving, you have the burden of proof. You have to prove the earth's moving. If it looks flat, but you claim it's curved, you have to prove it's curved because all observations show us it's not moving in that flat. We need evidence for the positive plane that's antithetical to observable phenomena. You know what I'm saying? Again, I don't agree with that being the default position. So, and I probably wasn't clear in how I said that because I think a lot of people don't care about whether the earth is flat or not. They'll just go living on their lives. But I think if you're observing, again, if you actually took a telescope and you're observing other things in our night sky and solar system, right? And you can get some really good views of a couple different planets with a really high-end telescope. I think you would then logically say if everything else in our observable solar system that we can see observably is a sphere, why would we not be a sphere? Like why would our planet be the one that is not? And I'm saying that from an observation standpoint, that's what I would say because that's something you observe, study, and test, right? Your results. And from, again, you saying the different areas of, you know, you're looking at the mountain and you have measures. Well, how do you know your measures are 100% correct when other people do the same measurement and they're getting a much different result? And that's the problem here. Sorry, bro.  It's actually been about a year in the globe earthers. I say globe earthers, not someone that thinks there's a globe with the people that like argue against it for five years to be humanly on the internet, right? Like they still don't get the argument. It's about the horizon. It's been a year and they still, it's about the horizon. It has nothing to do with the oil rigs. Those are just a frame of reference of distance. It's about the horizon. It's too far. Now, if you go back, like you said, and you see something different in the horizon's way closer, that proves my argument even more though because my whole point is that the flat earthers say, our point is the horizon isn't physical, bro. Like it moves. So welcome to flat earth, right? Like it moves. That means it can't be a physical, tangible, literal location based on the necessitation of a radius claim. There's not a geometric horizon. The horizon is where the sky appears to meet the ground, appears, it's optical, it's a parent. It constantly moves. So we have an issue. We can't find the curve anywhere and where it should be constantly moves. How do we even know it's there? We don't. When we go test for it, it's falsified. How'd they figure it out in the first place? By looking at the horizon and then taking an approximation, assuming it was curving. Dude, this is literally Albaruni who's attributed to the radius value. So we got an issue, bro. When we test surface of the earth, it isn't curving in any direction, anywhere on the whole earth. And they say 70% of its water and water find its level. Like we can't just ignore that. We can't just believe the government. We can't just believe, just because it's in academia doesn't mean anything, right? Because academia will change their mind in 10 years, dude. Science is supposed to change its mind when new evidence presents itself. Just like if someone's convicted of murder and new evidence presents itself, then, and we find that that person didn't commit the crime, it should go out. This is why science is a collection of that evidence to say whether something's true or not. And I think my point here is because one independent person did an experiment, right? And they found something that's off from what we believe should be the results, right? The hypothesis, then we need to redo that experiment and make sure all the variables are correct as to why that's doing. Cause I've seen them, you've seen them, other people doing experiments where they come up with the right elevation and horizon, the things that should be there. So again, there's two conflicting issues, right? Because you're saying, well, based off what this should be, when I did the experiment, I got something different. Well, why did you get something different in that variable?  But at the same time, you can't do one experiment and then say you're going to throw everything else out, right? You can't do just one and say, well, based off this one, again, back to my analogy of the plants, right? If I took that one experiment and then I said definitively, well, obviously water is not the best thing for plants. It's Coca-Cola because this Coca-Cola plant grew much higher than the one that I gave water. Now, do we know that to be scientifically accurate from all the people that did experiments with those types of plants that they grow bigger on soda? No, that was an anomaly of my one experiment. That's why we have to have lots of experiments. This is why I said the data, it's more the data points to, in order to show from an evidentiary standpoint that we can be certain that if we go in with the same variables every time that we're going to get the same result. I feel, yeah. I mean, that's what basically my argument is that I want it to be empirical, which is kind of what you're alluding to. Of course, measurement isn't science again, right? So when we look at, we know the distance and we're making observations. It's an observation, a measurement, not science, but I see what you're saying replicatable. Well, it is. And the problem is typically you're right. If it just happens one time, it's an outlier that would be cherry picking, right? But this is different because when it comes to the horizon, if there's a curvature of the earth, it has to be a physical location that can go no further than the radius allows. It can be closer than that, but it has a maximum extension rate based on 3,959 miles. That's a maximum extension of the curve can be. And if it's somewhere else, if it's too far, just one time, it proves that it isn't a physical place. That's where it's supposed to be. It only takes a while. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Deming to interrupt you. So I guess what I'm having trouble understanding, and this is, when you talk about it has to be this or it must prove this, right? You're putting an absolute there, right? If something, if you're examining something and your hypothesis is wrong, you go back and look at why your hypothesis was wrong. That doesn't immediately invalidate a study, right? And it's the same thing with placebo pills, right? You give people placebos and for some reason they fault the disease better. Does that mean we should get rid of medicine and give everyone placebo pills? And not use medicine? No, probably not. I think that would probably be a bad idea. So again, what I'm trying to understand, and you said if it goes beyond when you're getting those measurements, how do you even trust those measurements? Because it seems there's a lot of distrust in certain pieces of science and research that's already been done by scientists. So what areas are you willing to look at and say, well, this is a law and I trust the people who wrote about this law and made their observations about this law versus someone else. Or are you independently going and you have a log book of every experiment you've done to test and validate each law, right? Because there's a certain part of science you're relying on for your observations, right? Because you have to. You're not going to do everything because that would be ludicrous to go through and test every single thing. You're right, bro. My point is though, you have to be able to do that. Like it has to be viable that you can go check back check it. When you talk about NASA saying that the ISS is 252 miles in the air going 17,500 miles an hour with freaking 3,500 to 4,000 degrees temperature environment with elastic collisions going insanely fast while it's shooting through it and no energy transfer happens gradually over time. I'm just supposed to just buy it because well NASA said so or I can't do that. And like I said, you seem cool. I don't want to put you on the spot too much but like for example, there's something that happens called the selenillion eclipse where the sun and the moon are up above the horizon at the same time. The globe Earth says that the lunar eclipse happens because the sun's behind the earth and the earth blocks the shadow onto the moon. But if the moon and the sun are both up above the earth at the same time how could that happen? It's called the selenillion eclipse. It happens regularly. It's actually been coined the impossible eclipse and you have a shadow cast onto a shadow, right, which is the absence of light supposedly caused by the earth cast onto the moon while the sun's up above it. They're both, it's a geometric impossibility. There's nothing to obstruct the sunlight onto the moon. It actually comes from the top down which if it was in the heliocentric line would have to come from the bottom up. So we have literal eclipses that happen in the sky that can't happen on the heliocentric model and they just get hand wave dismissed and somehow I'm crazy and censored into oblivion and attacked all day because I don't buy that.  We just need actual verifiable evidence, man. And we need to come together before it's too late and realize that we need to prove the things that we depend our worldview on. What would you consider verifiable evidence? Like what evidence would you accept? Because photos are out, videos are out and those can be used in court as evidence too. So some of the, a lot of these studies from scientists are out because you said you're not a big fan of academia which there are certainly areas of academia I don't agree with, but there are certainly scientists that are doing really good things in their fields and what they're doing. And I think they do contribute to a whole and I don't think they have, I don't think a lot of them have any malicious purposes. I certainly don't think most scientists are like, evil Dr. Frankenstein trying to create crazy things. I think a lot of them really love their work and what they're doing and they truly want to better society with their research. So I guess from that standpoint, again, what evidence would be good enough, right? Would it have to be an independent? Like if, you know, would you believe if Australia or China had pictures or video of a globe Earth? Would you believe that? Because they, according to them, they do. So it's not just NASA. According to China, they treat their civilians great and we know they treat them terrible.  I don't trust government, dude. I don't trust government, man, they suck, bro.  We all know they suck. I'm not saying everything the government says a lie. No, but dude, we cannot just solely depend on them. Like it makes no sense. It makes no sense. Dude, we have gas pressure on Earth, dude. And Earth is not spinning. And you know it's not when you go out.  It helps you keep your balance simply. It's called the vestibular system in your ear. There's something called the semi-circular canals. They detect angular momentum motion at such a very minute, delicate, matte fashion that to claim that we are, you know, going 1,040 miles per hour and never notice it, while we're going 11 vectors on an elliptical orbit, elliptical orbit that actually changes vector is preposterous. The vestibular system couldn't work on spinning Earth. So we got issues for days, dude. We could talk for 24 hours and we wouldn't cover all the problems with the pseudoscience. That is the glober. It is that preposterous though, because of the scale. Because when I'm in a car sometimes, I forget I'm even in a car. When I'm in a plane sometimes, I forget I'm even in a plane. And there is scientific studies on this about being relative to a vehicle in motion. And when you look at the size of the Earth, right? We're picking, it is almost like you're, we're cherry picking that model or in this case, cherry picking that one piece and saying something like, well, we're spinning 1,000 miles an hour. Was that relative to the size, right? Because I fall in a sleep in a car and the movement didn't bother me before. And I've had that instance happen. Does that mean I wasn't traveling in a car? No, it means I didn't notice it. Was it a convertible, bro? Was the top missing?  You're right, you don't feel it on a car. You don't feel it in a plane or a train. But they claim that the Earth, dude, it's just sitting in a vacuum open and so if you took a top off your convertible, you'd feel it and we don't feel anything. We don't even feel the change in vector of the elliptical orbit. You would feel the bank of the change of direction. We don't feel anything and the sky never changes. This, for thousands of years, we're going 11 vectors and the sky never changes for all recordable history. It just keeps coming back and coming back and coming back. I mean, the Egyptians freaking built megalithic structures based on it.  What we can do is if you guys are ready to go into, I'm so happy with how civil this conversation has been. It has been remarkable compared to some. So I want to say thank you guys. If you guys are ready, if there's an issue that's burning deep in your soul that you want to bring up, we can cover it. Otherwise, now is a fine time to switch over. We have a lot of questions already. I'm good to continue, man. I'm good to James, I'm good for questions. Cool, so a couple of quick reminders. Folks, thrilled to let you know that our guest speakers are linked in the description. Both of their links are waiting there right now. What are you waiting for? And along with those links is the link to our Kickstarter. You will see on the far right of your screen the meter has gone up just a bit. So our goal, we're at about 81, 82%. And so it has jumped up just a bit. And so I want to say thank you. I'm not supposed to say Kickstarter says I'm not supposed to say your name. I'm not supposed to like say people's names of people who pledged without their permission. But thank you so much to the person who pledged during the debate. And with that, first question, this one comes in from Colin Lorenz, who says question for witsit, is there a universal downward vector bias?  And then one quick thing I want to mention is that we, to try to get through as many questions as we can, it's okay once in a while if you guys want to do a rebuttal to the other person's answer, but if you're able to do it sparsely, we do have a lot of questions already. And so go ahead witsit. Yeah, well, technically any compilation of matter that exists is electrostatic. That would technically be incoherent dielectric acceleration or electrostatic acceleration, something felt to the ground. It would just be on the geocentric stationary plain earth, natural up and down as an inherent electrostatic bias. It is so incredibly weak. We know electrostatics is incredibly weak at the elastic collision and velocity of the gas particles and molecules with strongly outweigh any type of electrostatic bias. Gotcha, and thanks so much. Appreciate your question.   Oh my goodness witsit. We'll give you a chance to respond to defend yourself. Oh, I'll try to keep it 100, I don't like liars then.  Gotcha, Brett, thanks so much for your questions. And Ken the, oh gosh, okay. Ken the Flat Earther, I'll put it that way. Explain how the Earth's shadow got on the moon during a lunar eclipse. I took a picture of it with my telescope. Yeah, presupposing that it's in fact the shadow caused by the physical obstruction of the Earth and that the Earth's sphere requires a reification that the sun, moon, and Earth are spheres and that they're all solid including the sun and the moon and that there is a three-body alignment which can't even be explained in equations as the three-body problem causing the physical obstruction. So you just reify the model and then ask me how it works with your reification of physical obstruction causing the shadow onto the moon. Gotcha, thanks for your question. This one coming in from Brett. Oh no, we got that one. Flat Earth News says the globe myth has zero evidence based on the scientific method. What's a DV and IV for a globe? You don't know what you were talking about, Gek. See the problem is any evidence I would have presented or scientific evidence could have been misunderstood or misconstrued. And I've seen a lot of these debates before. And I think with Flat Earth and again my opinion I think with Flat Earth, I think if you look hard enough at the evidence you'll see that the evidence does point to the globe being a sphere. By asking me to present evidence you're just, I'm just potentially giving you ammo, you're gonna poke holes and definitions of things or things I present and that's not what this was about. This debate that I presented was, is it probable from a technological perspective looking at things that the Earth is flat or a sphere and I believe the probability just from a common sense perspective as a lot of Flat Earthers like to say is that it's far more likely a sphere than it is not. Gosh, I think so much. And Paul Kamish, who we're hoping to have in the next month on for a Flat Earth debate, he's a pilot. He says, Witsit, why do stars rotate one direction in the northern hemisphere and the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere and straight at the equator? Well, of course, every single star in the sky moves east to west. Every single star, every single star in the sky moves east to west, clever, every single one of them. But of course, you can have the idea of cardinal directions being different from your relative perception directions of clockwise and counterclockwise. So if you put a six on top of a cylinder and walk to the other side of your living room it'll look like a nine. So they all go the same direction east to west. Everyone knows this, like top levels of academia. Within the heliocentric paradigm knows this. It's just an optical effect that appears to go the different way because of your location. Gotcha, thanks for your question. This one coming in from Flat Earth News says, notice he gives zero evidence based on the scientific method. He is now just begging the question, which is a logical fallacy, not science? See the problem is, again, any evidence I present? You're going to say it's not. We've all had this debate a thousand times over again, especially on this channel and many others. I think a lot of the evidence has already been presented and a lot of views have already been seen. So now you need to ask yourself, based off all the evidence presented, what makes most sense? And I think that answer is clear. Thanks so much.  What's a piece of you? He says, criminal investigations are deductive evidence, not empirical evidence, which have nothing to do with each other. You have no idea what science is. So I use that as an analogy, because I think that's the thing that would make most sense to you. Thanks so much, and appreciate your question from Paul Komish, strikes again. Again, at Whitsitt, he says, why do storms rotate one direction in the north and the opposite direction in the south?  Welcome to Flat Earth, bro. Snacks in the back, DJ's on the way, he's running a little late. Next up, I just love you to Nathan teach you that. He's just kidding, that was a joke. Sounds like something Nathan would say, but nonetheless, regardless, Amy DeWitt says, pre-show Pascal's Wager, 11 p.m. tonight, my channel. You guys, I am pumped for this. On Monday, we are going to have Matt DeLahunty and Sal, they are going to be debating Pascal's Wager in particular. That should be, I honestly think this is gonna be a mega debate, folks, and so come on, it's going to be live streamed on YouTube and Twitch. That'll be this Monday night, and Amy is hosting a pre-show for it. That is on her channel, which I am going to say, Amy, can you please post your link in the description just so people can see it, as I'm reading this mention. Amy also asked, question, why does China, Russia, and Iran seem to agree with their enemies that the world is round? Oh, you know, to just try and tell me, you somehow understand the geopolitical relationship between world powers is pretty wild to me whenever government's literally their entire job is classification of information, but yeah, basically say that they think that US really went to space and they can't be left behind. So they'll make up a story of how they went to space, even if they maybe truly believe that the US went to space, they have to keep up a facade of being able to do it as well. So again, I don't consider governmental agencies empirical evidence, it's easily fraudulent. Gotcha, and thanks so much for your question. This one comes in fast from Crafty Kila, says, can Whitsett explain the curve visible in Mr. Sensible's Mage 2 project? And by Mage, that's M-A-G-E. There's unbroken footage from takeoff to landing available. Happy New Year, modern day debate. Thanks so much, Crafty. I have no idea what he's talking about. I'm not subbed to Mr. Sensible. Believe it or not, you made a hit piece on me. I don't keep up with him, but I'm not sure what you're talking about. So you're telling me if there's an actual unedited video of a rocket going to space and coming back and re-entering the atmosphere, please send it to me. We all know it doesn't exist. They can't even show it landing without glitching out. And if you're talking about where you send the camera up to high altitude footage, you just impose curvature with fisheye lens. We have the same altitude with flat horizons, so I'm not sure what he's alluding to. Gotcha. For the record, Crafty Kila is a lady and may be on this coming month, by the way, folks, for a potential controversial debate. Cigafredo Sarabia, thanks for your, I got your email now, Crafty. Thanks for that heads up. And Cigafredo Sarabia said, game over. I don't know who it's for, but I appreciate the sticker. And Cigafredo Sarabia also sent a super sticker of pine trees, wouldn't you know it? Thanks, you appreciate that. GPS says, Austin, test GPS. That will get you your evidence. Oh, that's crazy, because the actual use case of GPS existed long before, as opposed to the terminology of global positioning system. It uses a Cartesian coordinate system anyway. And of course, all it does is add a Z-axis to simulate the sphere of rarity. You actually have to map it out on a flatter. You're using high altitude triangulation and predominantly towers for a system that actually pre-exists the idea of global positioning system. It's laughable. Gotcha. And thank you for your question. From P Barnes, who says, I'm on a lookout for a new line of work. Does cherry picking pay well with it? No, not too well, man. Club, as he likes to be called. We have also called him Caleb. Thank you for your question. Says, best evidence the Bible supports or denies flat earth. I guess this is for either of you if you have anything that you think argues one way or the other from the Bible. The earth does nothing but call the earth flat and stationary. It says it move one fixed like 20 times. There's over 200 Bible verses that could only happen on a flatter. It says there's a Fremerman. Just one. Okay. What's the, how about for you, Gek, if you have one best support or denial passage? I guess you could say reverse regarding flat earth. Not a specific verse, but I would tell people to be careful of which translation you're reading and be careful of misconstruing the meaning of something from someone who lived in a completely different culture several thousand years ago to understand what they were saying. Appreciate it. Thanks so much. Flat earth news says technology is not science. Why would you say this? I think that's for you, Gek. So without science, we wouldn't really have technology. And I think they go hand in hand. As we do more scientific experiments and discover more things, our technology increases. And I think when you're talking about this kind of anti-science rhetoric, I think it's kind of a tongue-in-cheek thing when you're saying I'm gonna accept parts of this evidence but not other parts of it. And I think it leaves a lot of holes in your overall viewpoint. Thank you very much. Next question. This one comes in from RemnantArt says, Spherical Earth is built into nearly every working computer from desktops to PC to phones to servers and they're operating and database SIP systems. Okay, that is just the most preposterous statement I've heard today. That's wild. But the Spherical Earth assumption has nothing to do with the efficacy or use case of technology at all whatsoever. You can try to say something about an accelerometer being within it. And then you can try to invoke the idea of the causation of downward acceleration which Glover's conflate with, you know, just the thing falling with the cost plane of gravity with Reify's concepts. Anyway, simply put, the only type of anything to do with anything that technology uses is an accelerometer. Nothing to do with presupposing the Earth's sphere like literally nothing. Gotcha. Thank you very much. And formidable Jake, thanks, says why does gas not go down boom, boom like you're pretend gravity when the balloon pops in a vacuum? Does gas not go in every direction? Gravity disproven? I mean, seems to work for me. Thanks. Thank you. And thank you for your question from Remnant Art Strikes Again says Spherical Earth is built into every geographic information system running logistics from ships to airplanes to trucks and trains with it. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Will you repeat that? Gotcha. Probably said Spherical Earth is built into every geographic information system running logistics from ships to airplanes to trucks and trains. Okay. That actually isn't true. It all uses again, Cartesian coordinates. You just impose as the axis the spherical assumption. All plane survey requires a plane assumption, a perpendicular plane earth. So literally all mapping all topographical planes are assuming a Cartesian coordinate system without the axis for all use cases. You can then take an orthographical assumption and try to bend it around and presuppose the axis. So what you said is just patent and false. There is no practical use in any way that assumes a spinning ball earth. All practical use including planes and trains and literally everything else that travels assumes a flat non-rotating surface. Gotcha. Thanks so much for that. And just had a question regarding the Kickstarter. You can sign into the Kickstarter linked in the description using Facebook or Apple. So hopefully that's convenient for you. And Josh Wainer, thanks for your question said, why can't I see beyond three miles looking across a body of water but I can see three times as far while flying looking down to earth? I'm assuming this is maybe for me. I'm assuming he's trying to say that you can see the curvature or something or the earth looks like that from the plane because it's curving down away from you or whatever. I don't know. But anyway, if I can't see more than three miles and I go back to the next day, I can see seven miles. And if I go back to the next day, I can see two miles. And if I go back to the next day, I can see 10 miles like in the black swan and it falsifies the radius. It'd have to be over a quarter million miles. So it constantly changes. You can't just say things that you can't see past three miles when I can the very next day. So. Gotcha. And thanks for your question. This one comes in from Josh Wainer says, oh, we got that. Well, Kamish strikes again says, wits it, can you explain why the higher you go, the atmospheric pressure reduces and will eventually become a vacuum? Well, of course you can't verify in any way that eventually comes a vacuum. And what is a vacuum that just conceptual? There's no such thing as an actual vacuum even according to your paradigm. You know, it can only be a near perfect vacuum. There's at least a few hydronatoms per cubic meter as they would put it. But nevertheless, we have a gradient for numerous reasons. We have a gas cycle. All the gas is being introduced predominantly at the surface and cycled there. We also have a resonance field. Everything's entirely electrostatic. We also have energy being introduced seemingly from outside of the closed dynamic system. We could never quantify this without understanding exactly what it's coming through and what the characteristics of the medium is from here to there. We also have weather patterns. So fluctuation in temperatures and energy dispersal causing the dispersal of gas to be relative to that. So we simply live in a closed dynamic system bringing up the gradients actually non sequitur to the antecedent problem that we're talking about just how do you have the gas pressure in the first place. Gotcha. And thank you for your question. This one comes in from C4 who he's bringing the thunder and lightning tonight. He says, Whitsett, have you ever done the, oh, I already, this is always a hard one for me. E-R-A-T-O Eretas. Thank you, that's embarrassing. Okay, or a Cavendish experiment. The Eretas of the ninnies? Okay. It says, how about measured the angles to Polaris or recorded star trails at the equator? You know these can't be explained on a flat earth. Okay, I think I remember more. Aristophanes, have I tried Aristophanes? Yeah, in fact, you can just prove even on a smoke local scale that you would get the exact same shadow winked by measuring the actual shadows based on the local light sources. We've replicated it like 50 different ways. Have I measured angles to Polaris? Well no, I'm not making a big habit out of taking trigonometrical deductions based on assuming an absolute location when all I have in a parent location and reversing to nearing a spherical assumption. So very simply, everything you just claimed is only exclusive to a globe earth, simply it's not.  Gotcha. Next, thanks for your question. This one comes in from L. Spaghetti. It says, witsit, can you direct us to a model of a flat version of earth that can simultaneously explain day or night cycles, seasons, and what we see in the night sky better than the heliocentric model? Yeah, of course. In fact, these things can only be adequately explained on a geocentric stationary plane earth model including the eclipses themselves. They still utilize the serocycle from 2500 BC the Chaldeans, NASA's website admits they still use that just to cycle the eclipses keep happening. But if we've been to space and the heliocentric model so accurate, why can't they predict eclipses there than they could 2500 BC? So yeah, there's my answer here. Basically the post-diction that's touted as predictive capability of the heliocentric model is laughable and all of these things actually came after the facts of observable phenomena being explained on geocentric stationary plane assumption. Gotcha, thanks so much. And that reminds me, sidebar comment. Tomorrow for the first time ever, we will have a new topic on modern day debate, namely whether or not the earth is at the center of the solar system. And I think Dr. Robert, as he goes by, actually suggests, argues that the earth is also at the center of the universe conveniently. So that should be a juicy one folks. If you dig interesting space related out there topics such as that, well tomorrow night we hope to see you here as I'll be here and it should be a good old party. So thanks for your question Richard Walker who says, what's it? You mentioned blue marble was created from composite images you conveniently ignore on same page 1972 pictures from Apollo 17. Cherry pick much? No, actually I didn't cherry pick. Cherry pick is whenever you take something and you leave out what would be antithetical to your claim and that's not what I did at all. I proved that one of the prominent things that they showed us including the iPhone default wallpaper was provably not true and they admitted it themselves. So yeah, this is how a flatter started for me.   How could people in 21st century be this dumb? What has the world evolved into? Then I was like, we have pictures of earth from space. This is dumb. Then I found out, no, we don't have real pictures. They admit their cartoons. Oh, but we got one from 72. Oh, so we have to depend on the moon landing story. If we don't believe in that, then we have nothing. And so then you should probably take a step back there and realize maybe they lied in the 60s about going through this rock that spins. Gotcha. And just posted the link to tomorrow's debate in the live chat folks in case you dig the old geocentrism versus heliocentrism debate. That should be a juicy one. And I will pin that at the top of the chat as well. C4, thank you for your question says wrong. The burden of proof is on you, witless. Please provide some empirical evidence of flat earth. Quote, they lied and it looks flat, ain't cutting it anymore. Also, please explain lunar eclipses on a flat earth. Okay, so yeah, anyway, burden of proof always lies with the positive claim. I laid it out in my freaking opener, bro. What's wrong? Why are you super chatting? Glow is answered in the opener, which is that the positive claim as the burden of proof. We make one positive claim. It's flat general descriptor of the earth. We substantiate that numerous ways. Laser tests, black swans, long distance observations. Water itself is proof. You make claims about the earth finger globe that spins and revolves around the sun in a vacuum that you have no empirical evidence at all for any of those claims. You can't show me gas pressure without a container or water bending convexly to a spherical object and not conforming to its container and finding level. You're making claims that the ethical to everything I can demonstrate empirically, which of course to finish it off, you maybe need to know what empirical actually means and that means verifiable, repeatable, falsifiable. That's all my evidence is. We're just supposed to believe your story, even though there's no evidence of it. Juicy, next one comes in from Flat Earth News, who says, NASA propaganda is greater than natural law. Oh, so it's still kind of interesting. I'd like to find out, like again, how many NASA shills are there, right? Like this is this conspiracy theory that it keeps being pedaled. Like how deep does this go? All space agencies in the world have been at war multiple times, but this is the thing that they all hold together on. Gotcha. Thank you very much. Formidable Jake throws his hat into the ring where this question says, is space hot or cold, GEC? I don't know because I haven't been to space. And if I was, I imagine I wouldn't want to be there without good protection. And ask, how is it that satellites do not melt? In this case, it sounds like GEC is unsure. So the next one, Formidable Jake, also asks regarding satellites, how do the people who launch the satellites resupply batteries for all the satellites later on? A lot of satellites, and from my understanding, there's different kinds of satellites, but there's a lot of solar energy you can actually get when you're that close to the sun. In fact, you'll actually see there's a lot of sci-fi movies that talk about, you know, will we get to a point where we start having solar batteries in space so we can actually start absorbing a lot more of that energy that's not coming directly through the atmosphere. Juicy, and thanks for your question from Elle Spaghetto says, what will it take for me to get into a debate against Witsit on the Cube Earth model? You wanna debate that? No, obviously not, and I've tried to realize like, this guy seems super cool. I will give it to you. You're one of the coolest guys I've debated, even though I think you're like terribly, terribly wrong, but I've tried to pump, you know, I try to like be more selective nowadays. If someone can prove that they're like cordial and deserve some respect, I'll debate them, but I don't just take any debates nowadays. Very juicy. Appreciate that, Austin. A lot of love here. And I disagree with you, but we're all humans here and we deserve to show each other respect even if we disagree on things. That's kind of you. Appreciate you guys. And Robert Summers says, what eclipses have happened that shouldn't have happened? I know Flat Earth avoids any type of model proving so we can never ask the real questions. The cell and million eclipse happens all the time, so that's the eclipse that happens that literally your model can't explain. And again, your model can't even predict eclipses. It uses the serocycle. It just assumes a geocentric Earth and it comes from 2500 BC. So, you know, I don't understand what's being missed here. If we supposedly went to space and know exactly what the Earth is, we know exactly how fast it moves and revolves and everything and all these other planets and their masses and their gravity wells, we would know how to predict eclipses, but they cannot. The cell and million eclipse is a geometric impossibility on the globe rate. It's one of dozens and dozens of proofs. Gotcha, and thank you very much for your question. This one comes in from Richard Walker, who says, Whitzit, Nathan Oakley sends his regards. Oh, shout out, Nathan Oakley legend. Go check out Flat Earth DB if you want to, you know. That's your cup of tea. Juicy, and Darren Helgamo says, container has mass resistance to force to hold pressure. Gravity is force in the opposite direction of the pole from space. Thus they cancel out. I'm not sure who's at. We asked for, but gravity is defined as, you know, the bending and warping of space at the time, two concepts. General relativity is laughably dumb, so I don't even have to address it. It reifies conceptual abstractions. The only reason that people claim that there is gravity and there's no empirical evidence that can't be scientifically valid is because for the Earth to be a ball, there would have to be gravity because we'd have to be pulled in all directions around it. So yeah, I mean, I need some evidence. I can't just believe fairy tales nowadays. Let's give Gek a chance to respond since we're not sure, I'm not sure either. I thought maybe it was for Gek, but I could be wrong. So we'll give Gek a chance to respond. I'm so, just with the gravity, I think that there is a lot of evidence that supports gravity, and I think it would take a lot of, when you're talking about changing the understanding of something, when you do an experiment, it doesn't mean that, oh, I proved this one thing wrong in my experiment. Let's throw this all out. That means something needs to be reexamined and we're doing that constantly in science. So I think going through the process and making valid experiments is a good thing and what people should do, and then reexamine that evidence. Got you. Rather than saying, oh, I did this one-off experiment and now you're wrong. That's not how it works. Thank you. And Spider the Ateal, thank you for your super sticker. I appreciate that clapping fox, appreciate it. And this one comes in from, Robert Summers says, is there anything that Flat Earth position is able to model? Or is it all just based on trying to create doubt in the globe model? Well, models are reifications and everything that the globe model claims to explain literally just takes Flat Earth assumptions and acknowledgments and then bends it and twists into a presupposition of sphericity and it can't even do it. So I guess maybe that dude Super Chat, of course, was said way before I said what I said, but y'all came and explained eclipses. So I think it's pretty ironic to doubt prediction when all you did was make pseudoscientific fairy tales shrouded into math magician equations based on host diction, seeing it reoccurring cycle, taking the Flat Earth understanding and then bending and warbing it into a spherical assumption. Juicy.  She says, you're one COVID payment away from meeting the Kickstarter goal. Appreciate that. We are excited folks. We are determined, believe me, we're going to make the goal. And so joined with us, we're excited for it. Spider, we got that one. And then Silver Harlow, thanks for your questions, says, Witsit, why do space agencies in countries that hate, hate the USA collude with NASA to propagate lies that only move money into NASA's pockets? Why do other really powerful countries and figureheads maybe work together? They openly admit they all work together. They openly admit they all have militaries. We all have foreign relations with every other country in the world. They all have military compartmentalization. So I don't know what, I've already explained also, even if they did actually hate the United States, which is just you believing the mainstream media and the news, I guess, then if they thought the US really went to space, they may would just fake it. So they didn't look like they were decades behind the technological advance with the United States because then they created a facade that they were actually, a geopolitical adversary worth notes. So there's two reasons right there. Appreciate your question. This one comes in from C4 who says, the rounded shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse can be seen as round from every angle, which means only one shape can cause this. No, actually you can make a circular shadow with like a toilet paper roll or like a block or a cube. Literally you can make a circle. Most people don't know that, but anyway, it doesn't matter. The point is that the orientation of the moon changes relative to your location on the earth, just like it would if it was over top of a ladder. You have so many, assuming salinity and sphericity doesn't mean anything. And once again, you just see that the face of the moon is covered in darkness temporarily. You didn't tell me that's because, well, the earth's a ball that spins in a vacuum and it's blocking the sunlight. You did just a presupposed causation of the shadow. It's just a story, so it doesn't mean anything. Next question from Silver Harlow says, Whitsat, why does space X, which is a private company not getting our tax dollars, spend billions of their own dollars on space travel? Well, they actually get like $600 million dollars funding from the government in one single year. And Elon Musk himself is on the record saying, we would have never got the space without the aid of NASA, so. Gotcha, and thank you for your question.  Lake Pont Chair Train doesn't demonstrate the curvature of the earth because it fluctuates day to day. If you go back to the next day, it doesn't look like that. And just in a parent's location, also some people went around the internet compressing the photo, actually compressing the photo to say it looks like curvature because that's what you gotta do, right guys?  You gotta doctor images and make stuff up and pretend that it's actually curving. But nevertheless, things seem to go below you in the distance. It's just optical effects. If it changes day to day, it can't be physical obstruction. Gotcha, and Dave Langer, thanks for your question, says, question for GAC, is your username taken from the game No Man's Sky? It's actually not. It's taken from German, that means madness. Oh, that's right. Okay, Spark, three, four, four, thanks for your question as well. I said question for both. We'll start with Whitsat and then we'll end with GAC for this question. We've got a lot of other questions. They said Whitsat failed to mention confounding variables in conducting experiments. Can both participants please explain what they are, why they are important? Well, this is to me, I failed to mention confounding variables and to explain why they're important or what they are. So I failed to explain them. You know what they are, but he wants me to explain them. Confounding, well, the word just means perplexing, basically, maybe potentially contradictory variables. But what you have to do is control the variable to isolate the supposed presumed causation, which would be the independent variable. You have to control the other variables so you can independently manipulate the presumed calls, the IV, and it's substantiated is in fact the cause of the effect, your dependent variable. So, you know, yeah, the three constituent parts is again the dependent independent and control variables in the scientific experiment, just objective. Gotcha. So the confounding variable is a variable that's going to affect both your dependent and independent variable. And when you're talking about certain scientific experiments, you're going to have a lot of additional variables that you have to allocate for when you're performing an experiment. If we think back to my example of trying to determine whether the moon actually makes something colder or not, what would be another variable? That might be the insulation of the house and actually different temperatures or the wind affecting the house. So there's another variable that needs to be considered that could affect both the independent and dependent variable. Gotcha. And thank you for your question. This one comes in from Flat Earth News. It says, why does this globe myth believer keep referring to science as a person or organization? Science is a tool used by people to understand the world. Absolutely. We study things that we can observe. We test, we create hypothesis, we test those hypothesis and then we study those results. Science is the tool or method we get to develop a greater understanding of the world in which we live. And from those results, we can gain a great technological achievement. Gotcha. And this one comes in from Alan Green. Thanks for your question. It said, wits it on a flat earth. If the sun is on the horizon in San Francisco, then at the same time, it should also be on the horizon in New York, right? No. So the sun is more local and smaller than you've been told. You were told it's freaking 93 million miles away and gigantic, it's much more local, it's smaller. There's something called the attenuation of light. Light doesn't travel forever. It has an absorption rate relative to the medium of course and its density. It has extinction limits called attenuation of light. You cannot see forever. You can replicate this a thousand different ways. So effectively you're basically saying we should see forever, which is just antithetical to all known facts about the optics of the eye where you can only see so far and there's attenuation of light. Gotcha. And Robert Summers, thanks for your question, said who are you to decide what science is or isn't? When you don't follow basic tenets of science, science is models and experiments. You all barely even have experiments. All right, who was that to you? Who was that directed to? My guess is maybe, I don't know, I would be biased to suggest one. Well, I would say it's probably for me because they brought up models and only a glover would say that. Model isn't science, dude, model's not science. So like, we have models, that's not science. It's a reification of quantification and illustration of an idea or postulation that you're coming up with thing. That was bars, James, I'm spitting raps out here, but I'm just saying, models aren't science, bro. Like, let's get real. I can model Superman, dude. You know, like we need evidence. Juicy, Dr. CuriousTube says, witless has nothing right. This is unlistenable. Please spend this five bucks on Schirmer. Believe me, we have, first I'll give you a chance to defend yourself, Austin. Oh yeah, I don't know, it was a pretty generic slur, you got it. Next, we definitely have absolutely put a good amount in the Kickstarter to get it moving and want to let you know though if you want to give to the Kickstarter, one thing is that YouTube takes 30% of super chats. I think a lot of people don't maybe know that and so if you wanted to go to the Kickstarter, I would highly recommend it. A greater proportion of the money that you give will go to what you wanted to go to if you use Kickstarter over Super Chat, though I appreciate it. And Darren Helgamos says, wits it do you feel speed or acceleration when in a plane? I don't recall feeling constant speed on a plane. Just like I told our friend here, that's a closed system, it's not analogous to the supposed open system of a pressurized system adjacent to a near-perfect vacuum of 10 to the negative 17 toward defying natural law so you're bringing up something closed and contained. Well thank you, that's my argument so it's actually evidence for mine. In order to not detect it, you would have to be closed, but you claim it's open. Gotcha, and can you guys hear me? Yes. Oh okay, just got like really silent over here. Silver Harlow, Silver Harlow, I was afraid. Oh Silver Harlow, thanks for your question says, wits it do you know how many suspension bridges would collapse if they didn't take the curvature of the earth into account? That's crazy, I've talked to personally over like 20 engineers I say building bridges and railroads you never account for the curvature of the earth and that you could never do your job if you did do that. It's actually just a foregone conclusion and assumption that supposedly it will naturally have been convexly over the course of time due to gravity but you don't actually account for it in the engineering or the blueprints of bridges or railroads so what you just said is per usual just patently false and people should research some things. Gotcha. Gek, Spark344 wants you to know that he loves you and also Dave Alanger, or I'm sorry, this is Brian Steven says wouldn't another country gain more power and status by exposing the earth is flat? The United States as a fraud by taking space travel, in other words they think they're saying like hey, couldn't one of the enemies of the US who knows that the earth is flat totally dominate the US by exposing them as phonies and claiming that they, what they've claimed. That's actually a pretty good, that's one of the better ones I've heard. But no, there's only a handful of space agencies that's the very powerful major nations and in the scenario where in which we've been lied to about the nature of the earth, well for example, they say American and Russia are like somehow geopolitical adversaries well the center would be in between them they'd have to be in cahoots to somehow make sure you can't go there. Oh by the way you literally can't go within 500 miles in each direction of the North Pole and like no one knows that. But so yeah basically they would have to work together at the highest levels at some point and there's only a handful of people who even claim to go to space and it's very noticeably cartoons guys. So you know five different claims of going to space with cartoons doesn't mean anything. So I mean I guess basically you're telling me you know the efficacy of the story that these countries hate each other and I don't know I just don't buy it and they would also have to admit to their people that they lied about their previous space agency exploration so they could never do that. Gotcha, thank you very much. Nikki Barry for your positive feedback said loving this stream, we love the positivity thanks so much Nikki and stupid horror energy has thrown down the gauntlet once again saying not everything in science changes the evidence for life being older than two billion years is so overwhelming that the proposition will not change in 10 years, 20 years, never. The evidence of earth being two billion years is overwhelming that's news to me I thought that was pseudo scientific fairy tales based on the presupposition of the degradation of freaking carbon so I'm sorry you can't verify anything past 10,000 you can't even really do that so that's wild. Next, gendalon James says why won't you go to the edge and take pictures and videos with it? You're not legally allowed to privately explore past the 60th South latitude due to the anarchy and subsequent legislation is early as soon as Ms. Reeson asked 2014 the U.S. put out legislation saying that if you are too past the 60th South latitude without approval they can intercept you and you don't have due process so yeah we're simply not allowed to privately explore past the 60th South latitude but that's probably just another coincidence I would guess. All right, thank you very much and Adam Snyder, thank you for your question said the only thing you guys just convinced me is that we need better public education education needed. We do need that. Juicy. Robert Summers says there's no education, self-education. Robert Summers says refraction exists you can't just ignore it and then say things are impossible. Oh refraction is actually based on Snell's law which is about the differential of light trajectories and two different mediums. Snell's law is about two mediums of course the atmosphere is a singular medium you have to use a differential of Snell's equation to apply it to a fluctuation within a singular medium. The phenomenon of refraction isn't being disputed it's the invoking of a vague idea of refraction without specificity to explain how somehow the geometric impossibility happened on a globe Earth. So refraction isn't being disputed it's just a break in the question of value threshold refraction requires the R value which is what's in contention so yeah we've researched your side of the argument it falls on its face. Next, thank you, El Spagato says this has been a nice debate donating a little money to say thank you and because I don't have a Kickstarter account. Appreciate that El Spagato that means a lot and just wanna remind you I guess technically you'd be out of luck if you don't have Facebook or an Apple account but if you have either Facebook or an Apple account you can bypass creating a Kickstarter account so hopefully that's convenient for you folks if you want to donate to that Kickstarter as we are pumped you guys. If you guys wanna see epic debates like Thunderfoot if you wanna see Thunderfoot jump into a Flatter debate I can't guarantee it I haven't talked to him about it but those are some of the names that come up Nathan Oakley is that if you wanna see some of these epic debates in person that's something that Kickstarter would be a way in which we would try to do that in terms of for example covering travel costs and I know that Thunderfoot I think has his PhD so that's another reason that he's probably in high demand and so that's something that we'd love to do those kind of big events and so this Kickstarter model is kind of our test to see if we can do those huge events by using the same strategy so thanks for your support El Spagato C4 says Whitsit is a liar there are plenty of photos where mountains are being cut off and some you only see the top. Yeah and then you go back the next day and it's not the same but why do all the comments keep skipping past? If I go back the next day it won't be the same because the horizon the obstruction it's just apparent it's not actual it's not literal it's not tangible it fluctuates throughout the day until you can show substantiates or you can actually substantiate that it's a definitive obstruction that doesn't move it's just an apparent location that's flat earth evidence. Gotcha stupid horror energy says Thunderfoot versus PZ Myers that would be another juicy debate and so yeah I'm dead serious you guys we are pumped about the future we have huge aspirations I'm crazy folks I'll push it to the limits like we'll take some risks but for a lot of these there some of them like it's like I'll take the risk but we need your help in terms of having these Kickstarter's work because that's the trick is that it's like we can't take too big of a risk and so that's why we ask you to partner with us for those big potential debates in these could say this new strategy. Thanks for your sweet question J.R.M. says Gek can you name five modern scientists who have done the science quote unquote to prove curvature or spin. Austin same question and I think I know your answer. We'll give you a chance Gek. Off the top of my head no but that's you know you could ask for any information off the top of my head and I could look it up but I think the evidence is there for you to look at and make your own decision. Gotcha how about you with it. The evidence for the curvature of the spin no the most thing coming with is looking at the horizon that constantly changes albaroony and saying that there's a radius or something in the geometric or geometric surveying which just takes plain survey then presupposes the sphere and then it's around never in the history of mankind has anyone detected axial rotation or movement it's antithetical to everything that we do observe how would planes even work so no there's no empirical evidence for either of those I've been looking for five years Gek if you find it if anyone in the chat finds it please just just email me I'm excited. What would you accept as empirical evidence like what would be empirical to you? Physical obstruction of the earth curving and blocking my view based on the radius value that I can go back and do myself and take a P900 out and prove that that physical obstruction of curvature is there then my buddy can come and prove it and then we can prove it all over the earth that there's actual physical obstruction of curvature instead of just some fairy tale that's elusive curvature that we never find I would need an actual physical curvature blocking my view based on the radius value that they told us is true that's what I would need. So only that only being able to do that very specific experiment and coming out with that very specific conclusion would you give up on the flat earth conspiracy I'll call it. Yeah you mean specific as in measuring the curvature yeah like I actually want a literal observation where there's curvature that seems pretty founded to me like all one is an actual observation of curvature in some measurement. I'm saying there's lots of observations and scientists have done experiments and I've seen people talk to you at your last debate they talked about measuring and you wouldn't accept anything that was given. So I guess the question is what is what is that bar that you would accept right. Yeah once again it has to be verifiable empirical meaning verifiable repeatable falsifiable so I have to be able to go out and test it myself and has to be reoccurring if the horizon is a geometric horizon it's a physical curve it would be in a certain location based on the radius value has a maximum extension yet it isn't it's much further than that everywhere that we go I would need reoccurring replicated verifiable proof of curvature and convexity of terra firma to believe that I live on a ball. Next we do have to move to the next one this one comes in from elite test two says how does this guy talk about electrostatic and vestibular systems like he knows they're real he hasn't observed quote unquote or tested those things himself how does he even trust New Zealand exists. Wow let's talk about scattered I mean I can trust my vestibular system because we'll check this out oh I felt my head tilt oh I felt my head tilt it's called the vestibular system it's literally for that you have semi circular canals it's just anatomy I don't know why you're asking me how do I prove anatomy in a thousand different ways you can use bioluminescence alone to prove anatomy in the layout of anatomical structures and it detects angular motion but we never do on this earth that's supposedly going 11 vectors so there you go anatomy destroys the glober Gotcha appreciate your question this one comes in from Diana Bender says wits it why has no one found the edge of the earth with all our scientific knowledge shouldn't we have found it by now once again it's literally illegal to privately and freely explore past the 60th south latitude so we can't go that far south conveniently enough of course because if the earth was a ball going south and coming back up north with circle navigation would prove it and show us stupid flat earth earthers up but oh it's illegal to do that so yeah you can't go past 60th south latitude Alex Stein says GAC is nice I'm glad a lot of people think I'm nice You're very pleasant you're very congenial you're very well spoken and I won't read the rest of the super chat because he's trolling but yes Alex Stein by the way yes I just got a message back from Rose so we may have Rose back on speaking of your sister Alex Stein Diana Bender thanks for your super chat I didn't see a question attached but if you want to ask a question like a normal question in the chat just tag me and I'll read that as a super chat because in case you missed in case there's like a malfunction there Wolf says happy new year James thanks Wolf for your positivity we really do appreciate that happy new year to you Diana Bender also says I feel like did I just ask this am I out of my tree did I just ask Witsit why has no one found the edge of the earth with all our scientific knowledge shouldn't we have found it by now did I just ask that okay that's embarrassing thank you Remnant Art says Witsit is the antithetical truth paradigm contingent an absolute anti-normative axiomatic rhetorical monologue yes there's not much I can say that was obviously a joke on how I use bigger words sorry sometimes when I'm trying to make my point live I use words with a couple syllables globers you'll be alright thank you Chris Gammon for your question says I've seen pictures and videos of a globy earth why don't flat earthers fly on up there and have a look oh well the next thing I've seen the gas pressure is a physical container and that means that of course there's somewhere that you can't go any further to have an orthopographic view of the supposed earth that's a ball that spins and all this crazy nonsense you have to trust