t have the burden of proof. But if I said cars don't require fuel, you never actually see petrol or gas or diesel. You don't see the electric, it goes into cars. Therefore, there is no fuel in those cars. The burden of proof is on me to prove that. The fact that the overwhelming evidence is that the cars have a requirement for fuel, that's the accepted fact. So the person claiming otherwise is the one who has the burden of proof. The accepted fact is that the Earth is an ablate spheroid rotating all between the sun, traveling through this universe. You have the burden of proof. And as for all your magnetic stuff, Austin, Albert Einstein said, if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. And I'd like to finish off by offering you some dressing for your word salad. Thank you. Culture cats. Yeah. Well, like I said at the beginning, these debates aren't serious debates. They're for entertainment, you know? And I'm pretty sure we've all seen what's happened here. When we see this in all flat Earth debates, we see people from the globe side, like Mr. Sensible has done that fantastic mage, sending his balloon up into the sky, capturing absolutely fantastic images. He's talked about the water tanks that were adjusted for the curvature of the Earth. He's a bit absolutely fantastic. And then of course, what the flat Earth proponents bring is literally nothing again, and what they will do and what they have done for the entire debate, as we all expect, is to try and pick holes in the globe model and try and catch people out on different bits of science that they don't understand themselves. You know, we saw that with Witsit when he was talking about relativity and Mr. Sensible asked him, well, can you explain why relativity means we can't detect the Earth going around the sun? And it all boiled down to the fact that he didn't trust an interferometer and he was interferometer, sorry, and he was literally throwing all the other observations out the window with it. He literally just, it was based on that one small thing there. When we get to the end, when he tried to offer some evidence for the flat Earth, it literally shows a picture of a magnetic field and goes, there you go, the Earth must be flat. There's a paper somewhere that I don't know anything about and I'm not gonna explain. And that's pretty much as bad as it gets. For Brian's part, you know, Brian seems like a decent guy, but when you're asking questions like what is the refractive index over 10 miles, you may as well be asking, how fast can the color red sprint? You know, it's just, it's not a question that makes any sense whatsoever. And it just highlights the flaws in the knowledge he's got, although he doesn't realize that yet. Hopefully he will do and he'll snap out of these flat Earth delusions. But it was entertainment and I hope you're entertained and I know that nobody watching is any wiser about the flat Earth. They've just had a good bit of entertainment and that's it. I just realized I'm seriously sorry. I had your name wrong the entire time. I had conspiracy culture. I get all the names. Sorry about that. But culture cats. Yeah, well I'm also Mr. Boldy sensible cat, so go figure. It's culture cats linked in the description in addition to Mr. Sensible and Brian Flatterer's test and Austin Whitson. So I'm sorry about that. Seriously, culture cats that I had on screen. No problem. My name wasn't wrong.  There's so many cats and anyway, we're gonna go into the Q and A. Wanna remind you folks, our guests are linked in the description and thank you very much for this question coming in from, do appreciate it. We've got a lot of them. We're gonna try to move really fast. M2M says Brian talks about honesty but just lied off the bat. Tower model was below edge of table. Are you serious, Brian? You gotta stop muting Brian. Yeah, well you're right. Once you mute yourself, I think now we're probably safe. Once you mute yourself. That time, that time I did mute myself and I was just enjoying watching to be honest but sorry for making you hit the buttons like machine gun in the buttons earlier. I get it now but can you repeat the end of that question because I'll answer it as honestly as possible. They said, Brian talks about honesty but just lied off the bat. Tower model was below edge of the table. Are you serious, Brian? Tower model. What I showed was what they claim is refraction and how it's working. They use sugar water to show how light is bending toward the denser medium downwards. This was what I showed was a Glober experiment and them showing how refraction is supposed to work but all it did is show line of sight, obstruction and lowering of the city. It showed compression which is what we see in real life without earth curvature. So that didn't answer, I'm sorry. That's the way I took it. Doesn't come in from, do appreciate your question. Earth is life, says my prediction. Whitsit will make many claims and won't bring any evidence whatsoever. This one coming in. Yeah, I literally did get it. Like it's an easy talking point to say. Like that's all he keeps saying they bring no evidence because it's an easy talking point, right? It's really a dishonest thing to do. It's kind of like, it's called sophistry. So that's all that is. I mean, we did, I showed you the literal magnetic data of the earth shown on a flat projection map matching a ferrocell projection. We showed you mirror flashes over long distances, lasers over long distances. We did also attack the positive claim with the convexity of the earth and show what's wrong with it as they presented to present things. But the talking point is that we could bring 100 pieces of evidence and everyone would say in the chat that are zealots, they would say, once again, first bring no evidence. It's just a talking point because they're like a cult. So I mean, to be expected. This one coming in from the bat man says, time for Whitsit to flat smack them again. This one from M2M says, Brian talks about, we got that one. David J says, Globers are just not ready for any real gravy. This one from KO champ fits as Einstein died before we went to space. F the flat ease. Okay, just Sean says, ask questions separate please. One is the moon flat. There's a reason they don't bring up space in this argument. Trust me, you don't want to go there with space. With the moon, if I look at half of it being honest, it looks like a disk kind of man. One half of it does look like a rock out there. It looks like craters. Depends on, to me, it depends on what side you're looking at, man. To me, it's potentially plasma. I'm not going to claim I know how far something is or what it is, unless I do. And in this case, Austin, you got anything to add to that? Well, we don't know exactly what the moon is. So it could be magnetic calligraphy. It could be plasma. It could be many things. It doesn't actually matter though. You know, we just now wash in eclipse with the moon and the sun above the rise in the same time it debunks the globe. So that's completely irrelevant to whether or not the Earth is applying like literally. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Miladia says support, debate con two on Saturday. James, I can't wait. Thanks for your support, Miladia. And the crowdfund which helps us cover the venue cost is linked in the description folks. There's only 29 hours left and then the crowdfund closes. So do want to encourage you, hey, if you're going to watch those debates this Saturday, we want to say, hey, they are completely free to the public, every single one of them. You want to help us cover the venue costs? That crowdfund link is in the description box and we do appreciate it a lot. This one coming in from K.O. Champ FTT says, some of these, we're looking for sincere questions. This one from, sorry about that. Some of these are, you guys, you guys got to take it easy out there. Well, be honest, be honest, it's the globes. It's the ballers, it's the anti-flatter. Now, Sean had a follow up question. They said, if the moon is flat, how do craters move from left to the middle to the right side? Not claiming anything's flat, but orientation changes when you move like direction. You can put a six on your room ceiling, walk on the other side, you'll turn to a nine. So it changing, the changing the orientation relative to position does not debunk anything. This one from Sean says, during your laser test, how far above sea level is the laser light? How far above sea level is the camera? Go back and watch. The information, it was quick, but the information's there. The absorber height's there, the laser height is there. It varied, cause I showed three of them. And I think the lowest one was one and a half feet. And I think the absorber height was about five feet. And I think that was like, I think that was the six or 17 mile one. But the information's in there. I just sped through it in my intro, trying to get as much information as I could. And you know, we're doing something right when people watching the show, Globers watching the show are getting triggered. And it sounds like that's what's happening, man, with some of these comments you don't want to read. Oh yeah, Brian. Well, AstroSmart says, you're making them cry, cats. Then Sean says, last question, how have no prominent space people blown the whistle on this? Statistical impossibility. Literally two different astronauts, two different astronauts have said, one said the earth is flat, and one said that they didn't go to outer space. And so once that is said, you will pretend you didn't hear it, you will ignore that that happened and immediately try to dismiss it. Think about what's going on in your mind. Two different astronauts, one from the Soviet Union, one from another place, a Polish astronaut who was asked about the earth. Is the earth really a ball? When you went out there, you said, I did not expect this question, but the earth is flat as you seem to expect.  So then don't pretend that that would do something for you because the truth is you're just trying to use a talking point that you don't actually mean. And also it would appear that when you do hear something like that, it's that significant. You instantly forget who the astronauts were and you don't bring that evidence to a debate. So there you go, hand wave dismissal. You're amazing at debating, dude. You should make a living out of it. This one comes from Sean. It's actually regarding these astronauts. Says, dude, the flat earthers really believe astronauts got in rockets and died even though they knew that it was a lie, namely that the moon or the earth being round was a lie. Yeah, I guess you mean all the ones that had twins? Even if they shot, like literally they all had twins. Literally the official story is they all had twins. So I don't know if they did die, but the point is that even if someone shot a rocket up and people were in it and they blew up, does that make the earth a ball?  I think that most people probably do believe the narrative. So what's it matter? This one coming in from, do appreciate your question, heat stairs says, Whitsett, please take a quantum mechanics course. Then K.O.Champfit says, Quantum, I gotta say, quantum mechanics actually debunks the globe because it's well known that general relativity doesn't work at all on any level on quantum mechanics. It's literally debunking gravity at every single turn and showing that they have to come up with a new quantum gravity to make it a grand unified theory. So quantum mechanics is like literally the globe's worst enemy. And also, can I just add to that that, you know, of course, when we made the same side, that it's really, really important not to explain why that's the case just to say it is and then not explain it. So because there's actually no detection of gravitation based on the mass distribution and the bending and warping of space time encompassed within general relativity on the quantum scale. Thanks for playing cats for like the 50th. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. K.O.Champfit says ring laser scope invented in 1963, Einstein's death was in 1955, eight years before that. That is literally irrelevant though, because it's the actual methodology used in the Michelson-Gail Pearson, which was in 35, which is the interferometry. And of course this effect was discovered by SAGNIC, which is what ring laser gyros use. And Einstein specifically writes in depth about the Michelson-Gail Pearson and the SAGNIC effect, explaining actually that based on the Machian principle to be a translation of motion to the earth, it was stationary. And he said, no optical experiment using interferometry could prove that the earth is moving around the sun, even though Mr. Sensible for some reason seemed to claim that this debate, but yeah, that's irrelevant. That doesn't mean anything. Let's also remember that both of them conceded in this debate that the ring laser gyroscope does show, well, Brian specifically said that the ring laser shows that the earth is rotating, which specifically said that it does show rotation and then just said it shows rotation, but probably isn't the earth rotating. So let's just remember that. Thank you. That's called a strongman founds here. It's only karma that you're robot. It's called a strongman founds here to say, and then he said, but no, we actually said, there's a vortex as SAGNIC effect literally is what is used to calibrate the technology of a ring laser gyro. He said it was a vortex. And we took the gyro to different altitudes at the same latitude and got a different reading, which debunks the claim of axle rotation being the cause. No, you won't, because if you know anything about altitude, if you know anything about taking a ring laser gyro from one altitude to another, you will know that the circumference of that circle has increased. Therefore the linear velocity has changed. So therefore, how does that debunk anything? Wait, wait, let me just make sure that you really, you think that if you take a gyro at the same latitude to a different altitude on the globe, that the degrees per hour would change. No, we weren't talking about at the same, we were talking, you said you took a ring laser gyroscope and then just put it somewhere else at higher altitude. You didn't say we're at exactly the same latitude. I did say that. It's not predicted by the global model, bro. I know it doesn't matter. You still said bigger circumference. Yeah, when you put it to the same latitude, when you put it to the same latitude, to you're saying that somebody's done that and then got a different amount of drift. So it's easy to say those things. I thought you knew that, bro. What was the evidence for that, bro? What was the evidence for that? You know that to go off and get the sun to change by one degree, you have to go up a million, 600,000 miles. How far do you think we have to go up to get a star to change angles? I thought you knew math, bro. I'm not sure how that question is running. You think going up a mountain is gonna change the angles to the star? Don't change the subject, please. This thing's exhausting me. Austin, what we're talking about, you've just made the claim. That exposed. No, no, you've just made the claim there that somebody's taken a ring laser gyroscope and then took up a mountain and got a different result. You've claimed that. You just claimed that if you took it at different altitudes that there'd be a greater circumference around the earth therefore you get a different degree. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, you interrupted before I finished. You interrupted before I finished. You literally said that. But the point is, but the point is, the point is you just claimed, the point is you just claimed that somebody's done that and then got a different result. And what you're referring to is Bob Nadell from Glowbusters who just said that. The same Bob Nadell who just said that we're gonna keep the results of the ring laser gyroscope secret because we don't want people to know. So what you've not actually done is shown any of this data. If you had this data, you'd have shown all of this in the debate. You'd have brought stuff like this to the debate, but you haven't, just like the entire debate. You've just been constantly saying things like that but not providing any evidence for it. You admit that if you did that at debunked action rotation. And then there's a lot of questions left. Oh yeah, I'm just saying then he's basically admitting that if it does show that, then it debunks action rotation. He showed his ignorance by claiming it would change based on circumference of rotation, which is not true. We say the same in latitude. So whatever, you know, for usual. James, may I just jump in with something? May I just jump in with something important? I was muted. Austin, did you say earlier, you were saying something about twins. Are you talking about with regard to the challenger astronauts? Yeah, a lot of them have twins. What a coincidence. Well, we've been here tonight having a very nice chat. Bringing or not bringing evidence and so on. Oh, virtue signal. Virtue signal incoming. I am absolutely disgusted that you could disrespect people who have risked and then in fact given their lives in the pursuit of science. But before you get disgusted. No, Brian, it's absolutely despicable. Let him do it. No, no, no. Brian, let him do it.  Come on, one sec. You need to go to vital statistics, bro. No, no, Brian. Before you get disgusted. Brian, please come down, bro. Let him do his virtue signaling. It's very obvious that he's just, he's just like projecting. So, please continue out. I think it's absolutely despicable. Those people have families, Austin. Those people dedicated their lives to science. That they put themselves forward as astronauts. Yes. And they died for science. I'm an astronaut, dude. You're not fit to wipe their boots. I'm an astronaut. I sacrifice my life for science. I'm an astronaut. Just to clarify, if people actually died, I obviously in no way would talk bad about them. All I said was, I don't know what happened because they all coincidentally have a twin. And then I said, even if they, yeah, most of them have twins. And I said, even if they died, that doesn't prove that the earth is in any way a ball. So thank you for your virtue signaling.  We can move on. I'm an astronaut. You can't come at me, bro. This one. Harold says, speak with confidence and swagger. No matter what you're saying, people will believe in you. Evidence is not required. This is exactly how cults start.  That's crazy. I see literally you sophistry enchanting the entire time and couldn't respond with substance specificity at all. It seems like you're kind of projecting him on to me, but it's all good. Thanks for the compliment that I'm confident and cares, man. I asked you a question. So simple. I asked you a question. No, bro. I'm sorry, man. We just got so many questions. Delco says, you dodged this last time. Why do our industrial robots detect a very small pole when using large and large end effectors with very small components? It's also a polling form, digital, not from above or below. It's weird. They only detect one pole though, ain't it? And it's uniform throughout the span of the earth. Shouldn't they detect two poles? Wait, tell me, tell me. The globe doesn't claim that gravity pulls anything. So that's weird. This is awkward. It literally doesn't claim that. So I don't know what you're talking about. Yeah, but there is a downward electric bias on the earth. There's downward electric current. Things that fall out in an agreed pound average of 9.8 meters per second squared. Luckily for cats, we didn't get to that today, but that doesn't improve in any way. Your model doesn't claim that things pull things down to the earth anymore. That's long outdated, so please update. If I can respond to that very, very quickly.  Every single particle of everything contains protons and electrons. So if we're in an electric field, then the direction of the force on the electrons and protons for every single atom is going to be in opposite directions. So why are things not levitating? Why do things fall?     We have a, like, equipotential increase on the earth which creates a downward current. We can actually manipulate electrostatics with the Vandegraaff generator, which I have pulled up right here, to change the vector of an object. So the medium has electrostatic induction to the object, which can make it go up or down relative to the density and the matter, i.e. what you call mass, and weight of the object, which is with electrostatic induction. I know that you guys think you can debate me about this. I promise you can't, and we would be here forever, so we can move on. Everything's electrostatic until you can put a bit of a warping of space-time and your opinion doesn't matter. I wanted to notice, I want everybody to notice what happened there, because I specifically spoke about all particles, having the most space to the layman, thanks Brian for your contribution. For the people you don't think it's worth it. Thanks Brian for your amazing contribution. We're all learning a lot from you. Thank you. No, I don't think it's worth it to the layman to respond, Brian. I specifically said, I specifically said before that, that you wouldn't address it, the fact that everything is made of particles with charge, protons, and electrons, positive and negative charges. We all know that positive and negative charges experience forces in different directions in an electric field. So it's all right for you.  Yeah, you're ignorant. It's fine. It's so low that you don't realize that, please. So what we're essentially saying is, if you're going to tell me that there's this electric field and the earth does have an electric field, but if you're going to tell me that's responsible for things falling, then you have to explain why protons and electrons are both falling in the same direction when they should be experiencing forces in opposite directions. You didn't explain that because you can't explain that and you won't explain it now. Yeah, all molecular and intermolecular, attractive forces, attractive forces, all molecular and intermolecular, attractive forces are electrostatic in nature and that's 10 to 36 power stronger than gravity even claims to be. So we're not explaining that, man. We're not explaining that. We'll move on, James. It doesn't mean anything.  It's not a problem. It's not a problem. Dude, you only... You're not explaining it. It's not a problem. It's not a problem. I mean, can I say my last sentence, please? Okay. So we should... Please stop interrupting me. I'll move on. I'll move on to you just so we can actually hear Austin. Okay, just to finish, what I'm saying is the difference is we can manipulate that independent variable like in a scientific experiment and show that things go up or down and causes vectors. But we can't manipulate the bending and warping of space time at all. We can only reify. It's never been proven. It can only be assumed and everything's electric and stronger than gravity claims to be. Thank you. Real quick, real quick, James. Real quick. All I was gonna say is this. No. It's to the limit. No, Brian. We've been spent so much time on this. Williamios' Flatter team, do you have a piece of the firmament to present to us to prove we couldn't possibly go into space?  The only way that you can have equal potential increase of electrical potential lines on the earth like we have 100 volts per meter is to have two Gaussian services, one below, one above. And of course, necessary to see the gas pressure as containment. I've never heard a baller ever explain how we have the equal potential increase without two Gaussian services. We don't have to go up there and touch it to know that that's a requirement in physics. Well, you've claimed there's another surface up there. That's a positive claim. But an approved evidence, please. Yeah. We can claim that space in the vacuum and not prove it. Thank you. Got you. You claim to start with four hundred two light years away. Yeah. You said measured supercurve at ground level two, but that's none of my business. Supercurve to ground level, so to say. Yes. Well, that's crazy. That's just objectively not true. This is only fluctuates. Yeah, we shoot lasers over it. We the military says that they treat it as if it's flat for electromagnetic propagation. So that's just objectively wrong. Green. We're here because we would measure it in one there. Green bastard says funny how the quote unquote science deniers are far more scientific than the evangelical science worshippers. Actual science, a method versus scientism, a cult. Can I respond to that then?  But what we've seen tonight is specifically the opposite. We've seen Mr. Sensible show the the mage which clearly shows clearly shows curvature the earth against that torque string. And we've had two people that just had to say, well, maybe there must be just the perfect amount of distortion to make that happen. We've had two people admit that the ring laser gyroscope shows rotation of the earth. But then those same two people have just said, well, there must be, because I've got a predetermined conclusion, there must be some other reason for it other than other than rotation of the earth. And then we have somebody who's claiming that electrostatics are the reason things fall to the ground, yet when pressed on it, they can't explain why protons and electrons are not ripped apart in opposite directions. And he's laughing about it now because he knows he can't explain it. If I ask you nicely, will you stop lying, bro? Yo, what if I just keep it real concise, dude? So the attractive force is relative to distance. And so these alleged reified particles actually are obviously way closer. So they're being attracted. There's a weak downward electric flow on the earth. If you don't know that Coulomb's law is relative to distance, I'm sorry you don't understand things. So if you don't understand that positive charges repel or the positive charges and negative charges repel or the negative charges repel or the negative charges, then opposite charges attract, then your education level when it comes to electrostatics is below preschool. Strongman fallacy, it doesn't matter, it's not very long. Strongman fallacy. No, you've just claimed that electrons and electrons Everyone knows you've been intellectually viscerated. We can move on. Thank you. You've just claimed that protons and electrons are going to be pulled in the same direction in an electric field. I did not have to try again. Don't watch it back. Exactly what he claimed. Halfway crook says, time travelers are real. Cats proved it. I want cats to ask one question they have to answer, please. Okay, so here's the question. It's to you. The question is this, in an electric field, do electrons and protons, which are oppositely charged, do they move in opposite directions? That's the question. Yes or no? Yes, if we, there we go. We can end it now. Thank you. And you still don't understand how you still got destroyed because intermolecular molecular forces are electrostatic in nature. Thank you very much. Thank you. You'll get it. You'll get it. You'll get it. You'll get it. We do have to give them a chance to respond, cats. Yeah, you'll get it. You'll get it one day, man. It's that all molecular and intermolecular attractive forces are electrostatic in nature. And yeah, the attractive force of positive and negative, which is a reification, but charging and discharging, whatever, yeah, they attract and never said they didn't. That's what holds the matter together. The overall matter has a density and a weight relative to the electrostatic induction from the medium, which has a downward current. Thanks for playing. This numbskull thinks that matter should rip apart because of a change. We can literally show you with a reversal in the field, things losing weight, going up. Show us that happening with spacetime and an experiment, please. That's what a spark is, Brian. When you get a spark, that is literally the atoms ripping apart. That is the electrons being pulled away from the rest of the atom because the positive nucleus has been pulled in one direction and the negative is pulled in the other.  Can I ask you a word? No, you have not studied this book yet. Cats, cats, can I ask you a question? If what you're saying is true, and if I use a vanagraph generator to make something float, what you're claiming is that if I did that to make it float, then the matter would explode. No, what I'm saying is because I understand how a vanagraph works.  I don't remember. Because I understand what a vanagraph works. I'm not a preschool level. I can tell you when you put those little fishing rods to make those things bounce around and look like they're floating, what happens is there's a belt rubbed against the dome. There's a transfer of electrons to the belt, making the dome positively charged. The electrons from that little fishing rod you put in the dome are also drawn into the earth, making that positively charged. So just like I've said, those two same charges repel, which gives it the appearance of floating.  Let James ask the next question. You're out of your league. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm teaching you something, Brian. Please stay ignorant. According to you, the matter would explode in a vanagraph generator.  Tim Pryor says, OK, no new drinking game. Everybody take a shot when with it misuses a fallacy. This one from used them all properly. Halfway through it says, Theo Mega wordy says, propagation angle and location in frame not equal. That's for them, I'm guessing. I don't know. What was that again? James, the propagation angle and location in frame not equal. We like propagates. Not really sure what is it. Is he talking about that business about the mage image where Austin was saying that the distance made a difference. He's talking about your little experiment with your with your ball. Could you read it one more time, please, James? With your ball, the experiment you show James, all right. That's all they put was that. That's all I have. Propagation angle, location and frame not equal. I'm not really sure what he's referring to then. Maybe they'll come back to it. Nominal says C C has been. Read D with a so instead of with a C redarted. What does that mean? So some there's a there's a NASA program that they sent out and they hit the Astro. They called it Dart, right? NASA, go NASA. Just kidding. Obviously, they're incredibly crappy.  But anyway, Jarron started a joke that if you believe that cartoon and you think there's no way it could be faked and you believe it, then you've been darted and if you believe when they claim they did it again and you've been then you're redarted. Well, pretty funny. This one coming in from do appreciate your question. Astro Smart says the earth and strings are flat while the earth is near the ground. The curvature is only visible near the highest point. So Witsit doesn't get it. That's crazy that it constantly as the radio constantly fluctuates up and down, up and up and down. That's weird. It's dangling from a balloon. It's swinging like this. So what you have to do is wait until the shot has it has the horizon across the center of the frame where where you don't get distortion. Why don't you take a picture of in the center of frame then? I did. No, you didn't. Everyone saw it. Everyone saw it wasn't in the center of frame. Literally, it literally was between literally that money between the two strings. These are the two strings center of the frame. We're talking about the camera, bro. Yeah, exactly. And any angle of the camera is going to change it. And just to what you're observing, the angle gets different with distance and you guys want to keep on whistling past that. And it's going to change. Oh, forget the camera. Forget the camera. It's going to change it to that perfect amount. So the strings are straight and the horizon. It's not the perfect amount. It's not even that's the prediction. It's not even that's the prediction. Austin, the strings were one third from the top, one third from the bottom. The horizon was between the two. What happened to the seven and a half degree drop, bro? In the distance. What happened to the seven and a half degree drop? It wasn't in this point thing towards it, Brian. Unlike us, it doesn't have an eyeball that swivels. So we're relying on the swing placing the horizon in the center of view between the two strings. You and I have eyeballs. We would look down, however many degrees. Mage being a static camera can't. It's relying on the swing. So you have to take a shot where the horizon is across the middle, which is what I did. And that's the fairest place, because there is no distortion either increasing or decreasing curve. And in fact, on the full Mage video, which I would recommend people go and have a look, I've got a Mage playlist. I've got a second one where I take the horizon in the bottom portion where any distortion would actually make it look flatter and there's still a slight positive curve. Did you do your second experiment? Sorry, James, but did you do your second Mage yet? That is Mage. That was Mage two. Mage one, I showed it failed. It went up five and a half kilometers and there was an equipment failure. The balloon basically had a pinhole leak, but I was honest enough to show that video. It's still up. That was Mage two and I'm looking at and currently in design for Mage three, where we're actually looking at trying to be able to determine horizon drop. This is coming in from that's what I'm asking. Kale Champ FTT says, I'm a glober, but the globes are just being rude.  What is that?  No, I hope not, man, but I'm thinking of the blue horizon shot, man. Real quick, everything to me, the Mage is a circle of sight. It's a circle of sight. So if you were to scroll to the right, it's not going to keep dropping down. It's going to have another same view and the earth would have to be a flower or a McDonald's sign for that to be earth curvature. Like he just said with Mage three, I want to see drop in the distance because you didn't have zero degrees of drop straight away and you required seven to seven and a half predicted by the globe model. Right. If it's dangling and swinging, how can you tell what the horizon is? Brian, but you still should at least show the picture center frame. I understand the strings and where they were. But I'll give you that. I can see that. This one coming in from Tim Pryor as a double header says also a shot for every time they dodge given any flat earth evidence when asked for it and with it really needs to learn what an ad-hom is. Never mind. He's been told the difference. He'll never learn. Yeah. Whenever you don't provide actual substantive arguments relevant to the other argument or subject, you just bring in personal attacks and insults as your argument, which is all that cats at the whole time. It's called an ad-hom. You did that constantly. So there you go. I think the truth is that every single time that I pointed something out and back them into a corner, they didn't answer. I don't know what the first part of it was, but oh, take a drink every time. What? Take a drink every time. Let me answer the first part. The first part was just evidence I showed from seven inches, seven inches above the ground, a horizon, 16.8 miles. That means the earth has to have a radius bigger than Jupiter's and they just dodge it. They just just whistle past the graveyard, just hand wave dismissals. Can I quickly respond to that? I don't think it's an ad-hom when somebody says something like relativity says the earth can't move around the sun. And then when asked to explain... You didn't say that, it's a strawman. And then, or relativity says we can't observe the earth moving around the sun. And then when asked to explain why, they literally just say something to be matter contracting and clocks and being asked over and over again when they can't explain why. And then for me to say to them, you can't explain your own point. That's not an ad-hom. Just make sure. That's an observation. Brian, Brian, you can't do that. Brian, you're doing a great job. Thank you. That is not an ad-hom. That is an observation of what's happened. When you say that the ring laser gyroscope does detect rotation and then you say, but it's not rotation of the earth, it's something else. And I bring that up and say that's a bit silly. That's not an ad-hom. That is literally an observation of what you said. When you say that... OK, this is my question. You've monologued long enough. Yeah, no, not really. 10 more seconds. When you say that electrostatic forces are responsible for things falling, but I say to you, well, how do you explain protons and electrons traveling in opposite directions in an electric field? And you dodged the question. Me picking that up isn't a strawman. It's an observation. OK, so what you just did right there were all strawman fallacy. So I didn't say that you only ad-homi. You also strawman me. And then I had to correct you again. You've been corrected four times when you claim I say that it proves that the earth can't be spinning. I've corrected you four times and you repeat that strawman every single time. I've corrected you on every single thing that you've said right then. Protons and electrons. You're not allowed to respond anymore. It's my closing remark to the question. OK, so the point is that I said that you started your whole thing with ad-homs. You did. Everything else you did was red herring fallacies, strawman fallacies, virtue signaling, baseless chanting and nonsense. Everyone can see that it was all soap or street the whole time and let the audience decide things. When you say it was your question, it was a comment. It was a comment. Make sure you guys get the last word in any way. I don't care, James. You can make me. I would say we do. I just want to give Austin the last word because it was directed to him.  And then we give you guys the last word. It's kind of like they're getting up on him. So I want to give him the last word, at least for the ones that are directed at him. Yeah. Yeah. Zandyle. So everyone can look at my fallacy accusation and count them. Zandyle Zulu says, Coriola's effect apply to a bullet but not a plane. Yes. This one coming in from. Well, I'd say, yes, it applies. It's noticed with the bullet rather than the plane. Plane is powered. And it's also being buffeted by the wind because it's not that fast. And so you're constantly making corrections.  Those inputs that an aircraft make are greater than the Coriolis effect. And also, aircraft will be heading from waypoint to waypoint. If they're off course, they'll adjust. So they're always pointing towards the course. So basically, Coriolis is there, but in an aircraft, you won't notice it. A bullet is a ballistic object. It doesn't steer. And so Coriolis can be noticed. This one coming in from. Do appreciate your question. Tim Pryor says, I want, I think this mean, I went to Antarctica in college. I witnessed the 24-hour sun. You can literally book trips there. Half to lie to fluff. No, you didn't see the 24-hour sun. You may have saw 24-hour sunlight. I literally am about to have someone on my show that used to work for NASA and was stationed there for those six months where you're supposed, around the time you're supposed to be able to see the sun. And he said, you only see sunlight. You don't see the sun, which can be explained with coffee cup costs to committing other things. You made that up. And of course, you can't privately and freely explore past the 60th South latitude. You guys are the ones that lie and claim that we say you can't go at all. So you can run this other narrative because all the globe has are scripts that they regurgitate that are dishonest. Well, I showed you tonight, you were lying about that. Anybody can go to Antarctica. I showed you the article from the treaty. Oh my God. I showed you from the government's website. So, and I said, you've had it pointed out before. I've now definitely evidenced it. You can't use that argument again. It's a lie. Give you a quick response. So he literally just did the very thing I said, which as I claim, you can't privately and freely explore, right? You have to get three months advance notice from the U.S. You have to give them your route. They have to approve it. And he responded with, I just disproved and proved you were lying about not being able to go there. I didn't say you couldn't go there. I said, you can't freely and privately go there, which just shows my point again. All the globe has is a script of lies. Thank you for this life says Dallas to South Korea, 14 hours and 10 minutes. Johannesburg to Sydney, 14 hours and 13 minutes. How do these two flight paths take roughly the same time? But on flat earth are vastly different distances. Tell them to look at the ISS logo and that explains it. Their main argument is Sydney to Santiago. And I was looking close at the A map and thought that ISS logo, because it's 200 years more recent. And I thought that it was the same thing. But I look closer and Australia is significantly closer. And Africa literally bends toward South America, explains all that stuff fine. And even if it didn't, they have faster planes down there. It's all it would take or jet streams. It's a desperate shot of the B-ball. He comes to Earth Awakening Discord and challenges quite often. Can I just add to that? The question wasn't about the flight path that you just said, Sydney to Santiago or the other way around. It was about two other flight paths. So you can't change the question. I can't remember. It certainly wasn't Sydney to Santiago. So you've changed the question to a flight path you know. So I haven't finished it, Brian. You've changed the question to a flight path you know. And then you've said, well, look at the ISS. And then you've still not been able to answer it. You've just said, oh, they must have faster planes or it's a jet stream or something. And this is, again, why people laugh at flat earth and the flat earth evidence that's brought because it's all, oh, it must be some reason. You know, it must be some reason why the ring laser gyroscope shows rotation which you have admitted. It must be some reason. It must be some reason why the planes take longer. Give up, bro. Give up. Okay, okay. Let's give off some chance. You just showed, stop bringing up the gyro. You showed the whole entire audience. You don't even know the globe model and that it would stay the same with different altitudes. Okay, please stop bringing it up. Secondly, we would have to look at the specific flight that you're talking about every time that we do. We don't run away from any of them. I have an entire stream on them. We cover all of them. And yes, there are jet streams. And yes, it takes longer in one direction than the other admittedly, up to three to four hours longer, et cetera. We'd be happy to look at the specifics every time we do. We debunk the claim it's impossible on a flat earth. So you can say we run away from it, but we don't.  Thank you. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Mr. Baldi, sensible cats says, I think the bald guys won this.  Again, so we, if it would be thousands of videos of this, there's only a couple and they are provably fake. You can literally prove they're fake and the ballers will not admit that they're fake. Which goes to show you that's kind of weird.  And again, I know someone that was stationed there for NASA, who says he was there for six months and never saw the sun in the sky for 24 hours. You can see sunlight that can be explained with coffee, cop, caustic. Thank you. Can I just add to that, sorry. We are, we are admitting that we get 24 hours sunlight in the, as well as admitting that the earth rotates. Thank you. Wow. You guys don't realize that when you lie at the end and it's a question directed at us, I get to respond and expose. You haven't put that together yet. No one claimed that the earth is rotating. We detect sidereal rotation. We detect sidereal rotation, but you're claiming it's axial rotation, which can be dunked or debunked, keeping the same latitude, but changing different altitudes. 24 hour sunlight can be easily explained on a flatter with coffee, cup, caustic. It's a 24 hour sunlight that you see the sun itself that has never actually been proven. Just to claim you guys are going to take things for you. So it can be easily explained, but hold on. Hold on. Go to Antarctica.gov and go to any, there's plenty of 24 hour cameras in Antarctica and just watch them from the government. There's several of them. Show me a 24 hour sun from a camera that's there right now as we speak. Funny, we can't find that. So you definitely have to wait 24 hours, what are you talking about? Funny, it's funny that we can't find that. We have to sit here for 24 hours. It doesn't exist. You're way late from this debate. You're like two years behind, Broke Ball. Yeah, it doesn't exist. Mushed the ring laser gyro. We've mushed the 24 hour in-art sun. You're behind by two years, Broke. You've only had your expertise, Brian, eh? Yeah, maybe so. As you've proven intellectual ineptitude this whole time. What's the refractive index? You don't get the last word. You keep trying to sneak it in. Intellectual ineptitude being projected doesn't make the earth a ball. We can move on. This one coming in from, do you appreciate your question? Dave Hinkle says, global believers, please provide a demonstration of measured earth curvature over a body of water at least 10 miles, clearly showing the approximate 66 foot drop. Well, I showed evidence of curvature in water with the tow tanks. That was over 138 meters. And it was a curve, a sagittare of 0.6 mil. You can see earth curvature as you see ships disappear over the horizon. Now I've seen videos where people zoom back in and show the ship, but you can also see horizon behind it. They haven't passed the horizon. Once they've passed the horizon, you can't zoom it back. Just like the sun, where the sun is setting and you can see, it's a really clear day, you can see half the sun, the bottom half, where's that gone? It's gone beyond the curve. You ever feel the sunset? Sorry, go ahead. Tim Pryor says, I'm going to read a couple of these in a row. I predict Witsit will well then this question again like he's been doing through the whole debate. Any flat earth evidence? Any measurements of flatness? Everybody take a shot if he dodges around the question. And another lie, we do not say illusion. We say show to math, which says, I can't happen on a globe another lie. Some incoherent dribble there. All planar survey, which is the base data used for even the geodetic surveying, which of course just assumes the globe, it comes from plain survey data. All data ever taken assumes a horizontal plane to perpendicular to the vertical plum that's established in the beginning. Again, we have long distance mirror flashes. Refraction cannot explain it as it is requiring line of sight. We have long distance laser measurements. Of course, the government also uses long distance electromagnetic propagation assuming a dielectric plane. And there's much more evidence. These are all positive pieces of evidence showing the planar nature of the earth. You simply reiterating that we don't give you evidence by ignoring the evidence, doesn't make it true. It doesn't make us dumb. It doesn't make the earth a ball. Thank you. And of course in the real world, people use celestial navigation based on a globe to actually get from A to B. Rather than just saying, there is no curvature. We've never proven curvature without showing any of the details. In the real world, geodetic surveyors do it all the time. And then we use celestial navigation based on the earth being a globe to get from A to B, which is how the world functions. I get the response. I showed you Googlers, didn't I? I showed you how to shoot in. Let's give it to Austin. OK, so this is the problem with what you're saying. First of all, what you see is this optical declination in the sky. And you automatically take it out of the sky and assume it's actually the earth itself that's curving with celestial navigation. And literally, admittedly, you have to use a geocentric center position to even do that. And then you apply the optical declination to the floor itself. So that's all that there is to that. It's pretty simple. And then whatever else you said is easily explained, which I don't remember whether it doesn't matter. So literally, with celestial navigation, you require parallel rays of light hitting a sphere. And the angle of the source of that, like that star, the angle it is off of your zenith indicates how far around the curve you've got. Nautical miles are minutes of arc around a curve. You just repeated what I said. You reify the optical declination, apply it to the convexity of terra firma, then assume it is, in fact, the cause of the optical declination. You then respond by explaining to us how you do the reification of convexity with optical declination. Thank you. Every time you respond, I get to end it. So Q&A to me is the worst, because you guys can't lie to end it and drown it out in so much strength. Says Witsit, if you were only allowed to travel one place in Antarctica, would people still be able to film the 24-hour sun? You guys keep bringing up the 24-hour sun. But actually, that doesn't happen. It's only sunlight, which can easily be explained on a flat Earth. And if it was so easily proven that the sun is visible for 24 hours, you would just have tons of videos of it. It would be very easy to see it. That doesn't exist. And why would they be faking that? Well, folks, we can't take any more questions. We've got so many. We've got to get these guys out of here as quick as we can. Ryan says Randolph, Fiennese, and a crew independently circumnavigated the globe, which included crossing Antarctica in its entirety. We call that the dog leg route. They admittedly dog-legged around Antarctica. They've never went straight over Antarctica. They could change us all with one simple flight, but they just won't do it. One more orbit is a dog-leg orbit. That's what we call them. Why do they have to lie and say it went right over Antarctica and circumnavigated and literally didn't do that? It went over like a little edge and kept going up north. Why lie? That's weird. It makes no sense to have to lie. I'm just saying. This one from Chris Foster says, almost 2023 and still not a single workable model from the Flat Earth believers. Move on, there's better ways to get views and feel edgy. There literally isn't a working model from the globe, from the core all the way out from the magnetic field, from gravity, from the quantum to the cosmological scale. There is literally not a working globe model admittedly so the irony of that statement is overwhelming. Of course, matters are not reality. There is a magnetic working. If you want to see a Flat Earth model real quick, go to Steve, just S-T-E-B-E and scroll down about 20 charts. You'll see magnetic Flat Earth. It's terabytes of information. It's exactly Austin kind of elaborated on it with the orbits of the plants. And it's terabytes of data. And it's a working Flat Earth model. I'd like to add to that. And then there's absolutely no Flat Earth model. I know you're going to get your right to reply, which you'll say, yes, there is. But tonight you've literally provided no evidence of the Flat Earth. There's no Flat Earth model that explains sunsets, sunrises, eclipses, the weathers, the difference in the anticlockwise and clockwise rotation of storms in the northern sum of the hemisphere. There's no Flat Earth model that explains boats disappearing bottom up over the horizon or the celestial star trails in the opposite direction of the northern sun. They haven't seen the model that I just said. Have you seen it, Pets? They haven't seen it, finish. Thanks, Brian. So there is absolutely no model. And it's okay, again, you saying, well, it's over there somewhere, but failing to bring that evidence to the debate. If you had a working Flat Earth model, you could have brought it to the debate and provided Flat Earth evidence. Well, we all missed it, Brian. Yes, go ahead, come on. Anyway, did you see that model? Because I brought it into my opener against Mr. Sensible on this very channel. Fully enough, we all missed it. Did you see that model? Let me explain what it is, Brian. We all missed it. So they took a year of longitudinal magnetic, or the sun's azimuth and inclination or declination readings, and they actually projected it out with terabytes of data, showing exactly how it works on a Flat Earth. It is literally irrefutable. You, Mr. Sensible, you and Baldicats will never cover and refute it. 100% never will. Secondly, what I said to you was it's ironic you keep talking about a Flat Earth model. I do have a Flat Earth model. She's pregnant and beautiful. She's my wife. I don't need a model of the Earth because models are not reality. Fourth, I explained to you, you don't have a working model. You admittedly don't have a working model from the core all the way up. And every time you pick a model, it gets debunked. You don't have a model of gravity. It doesn't work on the quantum or cosmological scale. And you guys don't have a working model. And so I explained all of it. You guys understand this. Please stop repeating the same talking point. It's really old and lame. Theo Megawarty says the principle of the Lorentz contradiction carries forward to all and every kit that came after the first kit. It's needed to maintain relativity. Thanks, contraction. Yeah, Lorentz contraction. Austin, you got that. No, that's the question to them. He's saying... Yeah, that's for them. What was in the point of that part of the debate wasn't the fact that Lorentz contraction was part of the debate. It was the fact that what Austin was doing was saying that relativity and listen, I think I'm gonna say it exactly as you said it this time. Relativity, he says, makes it impossible for us to observe the earth moving around the sun. But he's basing those observations based purely on a certain type of instrument on interferometry. What he's doing when he says that is ignoring any other type of observation. That's like me saying a screwdriver can't be used to prove that my car is on my drive, right? Ignoring all the observations, like a camera and my eyes a bit. That's how low level functioning that argument was. And Austin has still not got the honesty to say, yes, actually that's what's happening. So really quick, once again, what the super chat's saying is that it's actually, it was applied, Lorentz contraction is applied to everything from that point forward that has any matter that you physically try to measure or any type of clocks. This is objective catch up. No, no, that's weird. And then we gotta go to the next one. What do you got, cats or sensible? No integrity. Okay, so again, the point he was making was about the interferometry. That's the point he was making because that's where it becomes relevant, right? Lorentz contraction becomes relevant when we're doing interferometry. It doesn't become relevant really when we're making any other kind of observation. So again, the dishonesty is seeping out of you. The dishonesty is seeping. You are claiming. Dude, do you have any integrity at all? Brian, Brian, don't do that. You can't be screaming like that. Well done, Brian, that was awesome. Okay, thanks for your contribution. It was very valuable. But what you're saying is that the Lorentz contraction and the interferometry, you seem to apply that's the only way that we can show that the earth is moving around the sun and you're ignoring every single other type of observation and you're always gonna go back to that Lorentz contraction because you know that other observations can be used but you don't wanna show those other observations. That's the flat earth dishonesty in- All right, we get it. You don't get it. You don't understand it. All right, we gotta go to the next one. This one from Tim Pryor has got a two Pryor says, hold on, wait, wasn't the laser invented in the 1950s? Is he saying the Mickelson-Morley experiment used a laser? Please show the oil rigs where the cranes are not bendy and the other is halfway blocked. That's perfect timing. It's a silver mirror. He's a silver mirror. Silver mirror looking at light, but yeah, so it's interferometry and unfortunately for him, what it is, the Lorentz contraction applies to everything on the earth that you try to use to measure anything if it's in motion, which it is on the earth, moving around the sun, everything on the earth physically contracts if it's comprised of matter and in space and all time contracts in motion around the earth. This is objective. And yeah, there was interferometry invented by Mickelson-Morley, I mean by Albert Mickelson. That's what it takes to keep the sun stationary and the earth revolving around it. Is this constant thorn in their side that they don't like to address? Yeah, thanks, Brian. That's great understanding. What I'm gonna say, like, again, you're going back to interferometry ignoring all other observations. Oh my God. If you keep going back to interferometry, just because Lorentz contraction relativity is a thing, for you just to keep saying, well, that affects, you know, things that use interferometry, that is, that's so- Strongman power. So totally, exactly. I just said it affects everything in Lorentz. I don't have a chance to respond. Oh, it's so exhausting. You just boldly strawman me.  No, it's your arguments are weak. Your arguments are that we can ignore all other observations, right? Pretend they don't exist and then say that relativity says we can't observe the earth going around the sun because interferometers have Lorentz contraction. That's what you're saying.  Are you denying that? You are going, Brian, thank you for your contribution. Honestly, mate, I'm learning a lot from you. But really what's it? That's what you're saying.  Like me saying, this computer mouse doesn't prove my cars on my drive. Therefore, therefore my cars on my drive. Brian, you're doing a great job. Keep it up, buddy.  I'm going to try to keep it in size because this is making the Q&A take forever, dude. Actually, Lorentz contraction, according to relativity, is applied to everything in the world that has matter. This is objective. Any clock you use to measure time relative to the positioning of the clock in the motion of the earth is affected by time dilation. Everything used to measure any attempts to measure the movement of the earth is effective. What you're basically saying is, we can't measure the movement of anything because that would apply on earth as well. So you're not actually making a link. You're not making a link between the movement of the earth around the sun and the Lorentz contraction of the relativity you're talking about. You're not making that link. You're not saying specifically why other observations don't allow us to see that the earth is revolving around the sun. Are you denying what he's saying?  All right, thanks, buddy. What we're going to do is for the rest of the questions, we've just got to do a one quick response from each person rather than having the rebuttals because otherwise this Q and A will seriously go forever. Nominal says, Ryan, cool story, bro. Also, do appreciate it says James. Thanks for your question. You got it. And thank you very much for your question. Danny T says, will successful Artemis moon missions debunk flat earthers? Oh my God, that's why they didn't bring it up. Go look at the Artemis photography, bro. It's worse than the Chinese or the 1972. There's a reason they don't bring up space. And cats, man, do you have any integrity at all? Let's go. Don't drag it out, dude. James is earning his money tonight. Sorry, James. Tim Pryor says, Whitsett is only an expert in one thing, dodging and changing the subject to deflect giving flat earth evidence. And literally the audience can just watch the exact opposite of that happening the entire debate. Nominal says, CC doesn't understand what being redarted is. So he can't understand that he is redarted. Well, now he knows. This one coming in from Tim Pryor says, another win for Whitsett, dodging another question to explain Snell's law. Shocking. No, Snell's law is a refraction from one medium to another medium, but like my point was, I wasn't trying to get, it was ironically, ironically, it was actually him trying to divert into the specifics of that. When I was saying, look, it's a different medium. So ironically it was him diverting. But everyone can watch the debate and see that he diverted and strawman the literal whole debate. Except that's wrong, that's not Snell's law. Okay, cool. Tim Pryor says, love it. Whitsett claims they are dodging when they've actually answered. He just didn't like the answer, but still no flat earth evidence, even though I asked a thousand times. The irony. Again, it's just a talking point. It's just a talking point. It sounds good, but like we literally did provide evidence. I just entered that a second ago and you can watch the debate back. I'm curious. I need to do that again. He literally dodged every single point. The first 20 minutes is them trying to avoid my opening question.  One person, Brian. The nominal says, if you multiply the heat of the molten core by the dark matter, it's clearly slightly oblate. It's definitely a joke. It's definitely a joke for them. Nominal says, everything we observe with our own eyes is flat and motionless. We're not the ones making wild claims based on belief. Globers are. Is sensible, do you want to take that one? You just read it again, James. Everything. Yep, they say everything we observe with our own eyes is flat and motionless. We're not the ones making wild claims based on belief. Globers are. Well, I've actually went out and looked. I sent up that probe and imaged the curvature of the earth. We know that we're moving. We can see the stars rotate around us, around two rotation points. And there's always these people arguing about is it clockwise or anti-clockwise? Nevermind that. It can't rotate around two points. If you had something like an LP record, you can only rotate it around the spindle in the center. You can't have a second point of rotation elsewhere at the same time. From one location. No, this was from, do you appreciate your question? Mark reads, it's awesome. How does a magnetic field get generated on a flat earth? Explain the process and the mechanisms and the physics that allows it.  They claim it's an exchange of virtual photons unidentified. But I will explain to you that it's actually, it's coming from the background medium, which is pure potential. You have centrifugal divergence and centripetal convergent superimposed. It's a conjugate geometric expression. And I'll go ahead and let you know, just cause you don't understand words, that doesn't mean it's worked out. This one. Sorry, so just hold up on that. Obviously what you're saying is that the earth, the global earth can't have some kind of magnetic field, but the, cause it doesn't work, but the flat earth can, but you're not going to explain how, how it's actually formed. You just kind of throw some words out. I just explained how it's formed. It's over your head. You're incompetent. We're moving on. I was just going to say, if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it. Okay, a donut in the inside of a donut are the motions of geometry expressed within a magnetic field coming from the center, which gets bigger proportionate to the strength of the magnetic field. Now you can write it down, watch it back and try to learn it your side, claims it's virtual folk. Again, that doesn't explain how it's generated. Why do you keep talking? Why not? Because then it drives the debate on how it's generated. Nominal says everything we observe with our own eyes is flat and motionless. We're not, not though we just read that one. Earth is the license. Whitsit, what do Harvard professors say about the shape of the earth? That's called an all or nothing fallacy. If I invoke a hostile witness to correct their ineptitude at debating, right, to show they're not representing the actual model on invoke a hostile witness, I don't have to believe everything that that person says that's called an all or nothing fallacy. This is coming in from, do appreciate your question. Justin says flat earthers, please put your argument for flat earth in the form of a syllogism, premise, premise, conclusion, with an inference rule, et cetera, skip the jargon and just make the positive argument. If the earth is flat and stationary, we would constantly observe the earth being a horizontal plane and it never moving and the stuff in the sky moving. Therefore, since we constantly observe that very thing, that is the default position empirically that the earth is a stationary topographical plane. This is coming in from- That's exactly what we observe. Yeah, good one. Harold says, how many black swans as a refractive index? Hashtag flat. Nice. That's for you guys. Hashtag Superman refraction.  Brian, calm yourself. Say, how many black swans is a refractive index? I think that's a dig. I don't think that's gross. I think that's a digger. Brian's lack of understanding of what refractive index meant because that question shows no understanding of refractive index. So I think that was actually a digger. No, it's literally a joke making fun of you guys. So you'll get it, watch it back. You'll get it. It's making fun of everyone, including me. Okay, Pivot Siamoy says for the flat earth side, what were the atmospheric conditions during your laser test and what was the refraction index for that day? The refraction index, if you go to look at the FE core data, if that's what he showed, it shows you the exact refractive index, exactly what happened. It uses the globe geodetic measurements and everything and shows that it does not explain it going over the missing curvature. We use their refractive index in the FE core laser measurements. You can easily look it up, FE core laser measurements up online. Including temperature gradients. Yes. The flat earth says for globe side, at what altitude do you reach space? Internationally, it's agreed to be, is it 100 kilometers? Yeah, calm the line, but it's really, that's just an arbitrary. It's arbitrary, yeah, because it's a gradient. And as, yes, it's a gradient. And again, with a MAGE project, I actually showed that, I showed the air pressure slowly going down. And recently, about three, four weeks ago, I was in Dubai. I took an air pressure reading in a Dubai mile at the entrance to the Burj Khalifa, which was 1,012 hectopascals. I then went up to floor 152, took another reading. In fact, I took readings all the way up in an elevator. You could see it dropping. And at the top, it was 952. It was a drop of 60 hectopascals. And 60 degrees. 60 hectopascals difference in air pressure. And 60 degrees. Thanks, Brian. 60 hectopascals difference with no container in between.  Okay, yeah. The gradient doesn't prove it. You have to have the pressure. 60 degrees temperature. Pithy response. It took the pressure to have the gradient. And apparently they just claimed that the Earth's atmosphere extends infinitely into space. How profound? This one coming in from Tim Pryor says, last one, all the flat earthers could do is talk about the globe. Not one piece of evidence for flat earth. Imagine that. Well, the point is that we were all brainwashed with the idea of a globe since we were children and we were taught that's what it is, even though it's antithetical to all evidence. The default position is at the horizon's horizontal. The Earth is a stationary topographical plane. Any claim antithetical to that has the burden of proof. We are saying that the default empirical position is reality. Except the default. Yeah, the default empirical position is all observations ruled out of flat earth, which is why since we actually started to become intelligent and grow intelligence, the flat earth model was superseded with a better model that fits reality in our observations. Why didn't you bring them measurements, Cass? Why didn't you bring them measurements? Well, I'm sorry, but Mr. Sands will put a balloon into space and showed you what it was. Into space? And then you said, oh no, there's a perfect amount of distortion which somehow keeps that string tight and allows the earth to be curved. And it must be that because I have a religious belief that the earth is flat and what I'm seeing on screen I don't like. That's what you did. Not projecting, dude. There's something coming in from. Actually, just to the side. Just to the side, James, this isn't part of the argument. I have said I've got the entire major playlist, loads of videos about it. I've also got the full data set. Anyone who's willing to have that just email me. I've got the full data set with all the telemetry. You think that's measurements then? Go back. Yes, it's measurements. Indie Tiger Sci-Fi reviews says, I navigated ships in the Navy, ships in the open ocean, follow a curved path to reach their destination. If the earth were flat, ships, hold on. If the earth were flat, ships would follow straight line paths. I just showed in my presentation that from cancer at the 80 meridian or longitude, you traveled north to get to Sudan right by the equator. From Antipoder, 23.4 degrees from Capricorn, south along the 80th meridian, you also traveled north to get to Sudan. It's actually fitted, it's retrofitted to match reality. How could anything work like that? From either side of the equator, we'd go, both people go north to get to the same place? That's crazy. Quick answers, Brian, the gray circle routes work on a plane, duh. This one coming in front, I appreciate your question. Nominal says, can we all take a moment of silence for Icarus? What's that? I'll try. This one, front. I don't know what that is. Lemonygem says, legit question for Whitsitt and Flatter of Tests. Do you guys have any quick bits of evidence? Four Flatter Earth, that isn't just debunking Globerth. Yeah, like literally all radio shots and measurements, all electromagnetic propagation over a Flatter Earth, all like, again, you can do mirror flashes over large bodies of water at the surface of the water, like on the beach, and you can see someone reflecting light off their mirror from many miles away when there should be a huge curvature between that. And that requires a direct line of sight. This one coming in front. I do level for a living, I'll make it short.  Well, if you use fallacies constantly, anyone that understands anything about intellectual form is it literally dismisses your argument, okay? So that's why I have to keep saying it. The fact is that I have to keep saying it, shows you how fallacious they debate it. What's the name of the fallacy for dodging questions such as why do electrons and protons get pulled in different directions? I didn't dodge that, watch it back. Well, I just wonder what the fallacy was because you committed that a lot tonight. I didn't dodge that, watch it back. Got it, got it, got it, got it, got it, got it, got it. Yeah, you dodged it. Cortex says, flat and glow, please explain the belt of Venus. Belt of Venus, not term I've heard before. I've got Venus behind the sun. Explain that on a glow. Venus, literally behind the sun. I've got two, on my video, on Flatter Earth test. Explain that in a glow-birth model, please. Oh, it's when Venus is asked for a phenomenon that's visibly visible shortly at before or after sunrise. I mean, yeah. The Belt of Venus is the pinkish glow that you get that's just above the Earth's shadow. It's the pinkish glow you get in the sky just above the Earth's shadow at dawn and dusk. Yeah, like a Tesla coil using a magnetic energy would ignite the neon gases. I don't know what the globe claim is. It's quite a simple answer to explain why you can see Venus. That's not the question. But you can only see it. Well, no, you mentioned it, though. You can only see it like that transition time between night and day. Have you seen the diagram of how that would look? And if you were on that transition line, on that terminated line, why it would be easy to see Venus? As you say, Brian, behind the sun or in the nighttime? It's an illusion.  We don't know what the moon is, but we know what it isn't. This is Flat Earth logic and says, what about the rich people that have gone to space? How do they pay them off to be quiet that it's fake? What about the girl that went there, came down and said, I thought I was going to see the curvature of the Earth. How come they supposedly go into space and they only float for less than four minutes and actually they only show less than 30 seconds? If you think that proves you're a cyborg, you're very desperate and suffer from confirmation bias. Wasn't that one who went upon Richard Branson's right? Or was it in Blue Origin? Yeah, Blue Origin. You said that. That's because she just didn't know what to expect. She thought she was going to see the entire globe of the Earth. She was just wrong. Okay, we did it.  We can move on.  We can move on. What a mean apologist. It happens to be the truth. You're going to make an excuse for everything. Did she come down and say it was flat? What's it? Did she come down and say the Earth is flat? Did I say she did? No, she did. Did she? She didn't come down and say the Earth is flat. I didn't say she did. Did she? In any way, shape or form, did she come down and say the Earth is flat? This is a question for us, so I'll wrap it up. I said my point very simply. The fact they supposedly went to space. So no, she didn't say the Earth was flat. She didn't say it. Thank God. The fact they supposedly went to space, but Neil deGrasse Tyson, the scientific communicator, put out to the whole world says you would never see curvature from that height and they claimed to have only floated for a couple minutes. It's hilarious. People think that proves the Earth is the ball. So no, they never said it was flat. You can't. You got to always try to use your sophistry at the end, but all the viewers are seeing through you conspiracy gats just in case you were wondering. Except for the zealots. No, they didn't say it was flat. Thank you. You can see through you've been exposed there. So no, thank you. They are speaking to the globe, bro. Werner von Braun, Walt Disney, Stanley Kubrick, pictured chilling together equals NASA. How much do you know about your space agencies? They'll whistle right past it, man. Justin says, James, you should get with it and Darth Dawkins to debate. I don't know if that's going to happen. Tim Pryor says, what about the rich people that have, we got that one. Skye Sion says, cats, they said the gyro shows the rotation of the stars, not Earth. If you can't be honest about that, how can we trust anything else you're saying? Specifically, Brian said, specifically, and if you wind back, specifically, he said, the ring gyro shows rotation of the Earth, specifically.  Well, I tell you what, Brian, you can put that on your channel. You can go back through this debate and you can see what you said and then you can put it on the channel. And if I'm wrong, I will take my channel down. How about that? Let's put some money on it publicly. That's a bit. That's a bit.  He even said that I said it. That's not enough for Brian. He even said that I said it at first, right? So it's like, if Brian said something to the effect of, well, you guys say that it shows the Earth's rotating, we get it. And then you're like, look, he proved it, whatever. You know, it's obviously was 100% dishonest. I can assure you that. But he's bet his channel. Brian, he's bet his channel. I'll bet my pinky toe. And I'll chuck in a five or two. I'll give you a five.  We already know the next one. This one coming in from Delco says, when making very small printed circuits, electrons now physically jump from one gate to another. Physically, please actually explain and not do the, no, oh. At least show me an electron falling through the air. All he talks about is electrons and protons with gravity. Dude, that's what holds matter together. He said it a hundred times, bro. I can't wait for your channel to be deleted. Brian, I don't think you know what an electron and a proton is. You don't either. That's negative protons. Who's that question? Who's that question for? I don't know who it was. They said, when making very small printed circuits, electrons now physically jump from one gate to another. Physically, please explain how this happens. Yes. The Heidringberg uncertainty principle. You don't know what that means. So actually, it's all that means. Oh, I don't know. Sorry. Was I not answering the question that was asked? I don't think so.  Basically, the position of an electron in the electron cloud is essentially a probability. And that probability, when you get two places that are close enough, the probability of an electron existing in one place and another place can result in it's not like a fixed position. So an electron can suddenly kind of appear to pop over in this direction. But it's just a probability distribution. Science. It just means you can't isolate it. Science. But also, we can see them, Brian, in a cathode or a oscilloscope. So we can manipulate them with an electric magnetic field. Or 100 million times smaller than that. That's how white televisions work, Brian. 100 million smaller than that. They have shirts with minus signs on them. Tim Pryor with another two-parter says, when are you guys going to start using Flat Earth technology?  When are you actually going to contribute to humanity? And people have literally done facial recognition on the astronauts. A couple were brothers and the others were just coincidence. Debunked, do your own research. You ding-dong. They objectively claim that there were twins on there. And if you want to lie about it, it shows what you guys have to do. Secondly, all technology is flatter. If that's hilarious that you guys say that a plane is engineered to fly over a flat stationary plane. No, it's literally engineered to fly over a stationary plane. When we use electromagnetic weapons systems in the military over a flat stationary plane, this is objective. Now you guys can say it just accounts for it magically or whatever. But we already have. You have to account for the Earth being a stationary topographical plane for a majority of actual technology. Thanks. Quantum physics does not agree we're relative. No, no, no. All of our technology is quantum physics, not relativity. You're talking about the whole thing, assuming a rigid aircraft of constant mass over a flat plane. That's a model. Aircraft are not rigid. They bend and flex. They're not constant mass because they use their fuel. And the Earth is not flat. But it makes no difference when you're flying. So why take it into account? Oh, it makes no difference. You do engineer like it's fine. Thank you.  What plane cares about is the the earth pressure at that altitude and the velocity that it's flying through. That's what maintains the altitude of a plane in the air, isn't it? Horizontal layer. The plane doesn't grab at the ground.  It's horizontal layers of a stationary topographical plane. Horizontal layers. It's admittedly, the globe claims that it's just like it was a stationary plane because gravity takes care of the rest. That's objectively the position. You did engineer it like it was a flat plane. You can deny it all you want to. No, there's no engineering of a plane like it's flat plane. I've just said that the plane flies through the Earth and its altitude is dependent on the speed it's traveling. You always got to get the last pressure around it. Simple as that. You can misrepresent that, but that's like saying it's I just refuted you. You're going to save your flying over mountains. I'm sorry, but we're not too far from the end. So we're going to move through these really fast sky. Sion says, CC, why do you constantly straw man and blatantly lie about what it is saying? Like we can't see it happening. Well, there is no straw man in line. So let's just review all those points. That's a good play star. So which it started at the end, let's go from the end, was talking about electrostatics being the reason things go full. And though when I brought up the point that electrons and protons are different charges and we're moving opposite directions in an electric field, he didn't even want to mention that. So he wanted to, that's not a straw man for me. He literally wanted to ignore it as much as he possibly could. When we were talking at the beginning about the earth being observed moving around the sun, all which it wanted to talk about was Lorenz contraction and the interferometry. He didn't want to talk about any other observations. That's not a straw man. That is exactly what he did. So he's very, very selective. That's not an ad home. It's not a straw man. It's exactly what he's done. This coming in from, do appreciate your question. Dave Hinkle says, global eavers, please provide a demonstration of measured earth curvature over a body of water at least 10 miles, clearly showing the approximate 66-foot drop. Never been done. We've had that one James. We've had that one, that's repeat. Sorry, I thought that seemed fine. Yeah, you skipped that one. So they want to skip it again. This one from Tim Pryor. No, no, I fully answered actually. All right, Brian's a joke man. I shouldn't have done this by fault. Okay, cool. All right, Tim Pryor says, witsit, millions of people have jobs depending on gravity's existence. Please provide evidence that I'm wrong. $200,000 or $2,000 if you can. Yeah, well, that's just an anti-flatter earth earth so 100% will not pay me, but gravity as little g is downward acceleration agreed upon average of things falling down. That's the effect of quote unquote gravity. So yeah, we do use that, right? We use an agreed upon average of constant value to make the equations balance out, but that doesn't prove the claimed cause of the downward acceleration, which is the bending and warping of space time. So yeah, I can use a kinematic equation with height, time and initial velocity to solve for downward acceleration or little g that we can use for different types of engineering has nothing to do with the cause claim of gravity. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Delco says last time witsit was on, I asked him to explain my dad and his private visit to past the 60, would you like to update your script witsit? He went on an approved route. So you can only go where the government says if I have 100 acres, I have hidden treasure on one of the acres and I say, you can come see if I have treasure, but you're only allowed to go to five of the acres.  They only let you go where they say you can go. It's very simple. If you have to lie about it, it shows you're dishonest overall. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Steve 6464 says what was that NASA person's name that was in Antarctica? David Beverly Jr. Nominal says, Mr. Sensible, how do you differentiate the rotation of the earth versus the rotation of the bullet to prove Coriolis? Please and thank you. The rotation of the bullet, you talk, I don't have any shooting experience because we don't really have guns here, but you talk about the rifling that caused the bullet to spin, I don't know, but a long distance sniper will have to account for the direction he's shooting, north, south, east, and west, et cetera, as well as weather effects because there is a measurable Coriolis. There are videos on there with snipers showing the different shooting north, shooting south. Coriolis actually also happens east to west. I think it's called the Etrus, I think that's how I say it, EOTVS, Etrus. Bro, can I please just say this because it's really cool. I think Brian was about to say it. The dude just broke the longest record. Jared reached out to him, he told him that he's never counted for Coriolis on his left, he just shot something 4.83 miles or something, did not count for Coriolis. Jared just talked to him in all directions. Okay. The bullet was in the air for half a minute, bro. Half a minute in the air, dude. Yeah, well, I don't know anything about that, but that doesn't mean you can't hit anything, but if you want to be more accurate and hit things more often, you're gonna have to take account of Coriolis. Okay, he was just accurate for five miles. All it is, is you're moving from an area at one revolutionary rotational speed to another of a differing rotational speed. It's the equivalent of stepping off of a moving train onto a platform. You maintain your momentum as a train rolling past at 20 miles an hour. You step onto the platform, that platform zero.  That's an equivalent to Coriolis. We get the principle it doesn't happen in reality. We get the principle it doesn't happen in reality. Well, that question was to me, so I get to finish off. Unfortunately, you can say that, but you're wrong. This one from Tim Pryor. Several parters says, I got it. No answer to my question. Go figure with it. Sorry, I must have missed it. $1,000 for one flat earth proof. Now, dodge. And then said, dude, instead of saying it would take too long to explain, just say you don't know. Seven inches, seven inches, 16.8 miles. Stop boasting, bro. That's great, buddy. Mirror flashes over large bodies of water require a line of sight. Give me my money, bro.  I got a baby on the way, bro. Let me get my bread. Sunflower says, can we all agree you lose credibility for vaping? Tim Pryor says, thanks for proving my point, again, evaded flat earth evidence. It's funny you believe Neil deGrasse Tyson on one thing, but not others.  That is hard. In all or nothing fallacy. Mr. sensible, why would you agree with an all or nothing fallacy? It's very rude. That question's to Mr. sensible, because Neil says, that stuff is flat if you're 2 millimeters above this beach ball, 60 miles in the air. Yeah, it will look flat to your eyes. I mean, we're talking about what is a small amount of curvature that would be hard to see visually. As I said earlier, even with a still, and you won't have that still if you're floating in a balloon like Felix Baumgartner, even with a still, it is hard to see. That's why I compress it, compress the image side to side to accentuate it to make it easier to see. The fact is, they're really effective there. So that can't be a circle of sight, by any chance. No, no, no. Why is that fake Austin? Because you have to compress it. So there's even slight convexity imposed by the angle of view. So if you were looking at something really, really tiny, if you use a microscope, does that make it fake? No, you're just using a microscope to accentuate what's actually there.  It's a circle of sight. OK, the question was actually to me. So I'm just going to. This is the answer to your question, Mr. sensible. If you have just a slight bit of convexity imposed based on the angle of view or the lens, rectilinear lens, which you admitted earlier, it does do that. When you compress it, it will exaggerate that slight bit of convexity. If you want to pretend that it somehow proves you're it's curved, then you can go for it, man. We'll let the audience decide. Right. And I'll finish by saying it's barrel distortion. The distortion is grates at the top and the bottom. And if that horizon was flat and that curve was caused by the lens, then those strings would have been curved. And as they're in a more distorting area, they would have been even more curved. You can't have it both ways. Tim, but apparently there was some magic optics going on that allowed only. Are you talking, man? The question was for me. Oh, hey, I'm sorry. I'll let James go on for a while. It's just lame and annoying. Actually, I'll use this time to say the guy said the electron question was for me. Actually, as pseudoscientific, you should look into Charles Protostime. It's terminal in one unit line of dielectric induction. They claim that electrons are actually point particles with no size or shape. And they claim that they're density clouds that are nowhere and everywhere at the same time it's all pseudoscience. All right. This is coming in from Duke Brigitte, Tim Pryor says, and planes being designed literally have to formulate gravity into it. Now what? And then said, the fact flat earthers think they're smarter than billions, says a lot. Kitten videos millions of views, but no flatter channel. Wonder why? You're basically bragging about them admitting that we censor us. They admittedly censor flat earth and you're bragging about it. And then these people literally only have a channel because they attack flat earth. And they get propped up by the algorithms. And you're going to brag about us not being seen. That seems like insane to me. Oh, and then planes accounting for gravity. Again, that's the same thing with little g-down or acceleration. You can use a kinematic equation that doesn't use a radius or a mass. It has height, time and initial velocity. It's nothing more than the effect you're claiming to prove the cause. Well, you're only so late show. You don't seem to be very censored, do you? Your channel isn't closed down. As long as you follow YouTube rules, you can say it.  Dude, censored means that we're prevented from being seen fairly and they admitted that they did it. You don't have to literally disappear off YouTube to be censored.  Read the definition. Preventing us from being seen fairly is suppressing us. That is censorship. They might not be pushing you, but they're not suppressing you. No, they are suppressing. If you Google my name, you'll find a YouTube video with 50 views instead of finding mine with 21,000 views. Go try. Boo, Marvel Sciences, Whitsit. In the Airman's Information Manual, where does it say planes are designed to fly over a flat stationery earth? No. So literally all of them say. Well, yeah. So literally they all account for a flat stationery plane, earth, model, like a flat stationery surface. The claim is that what it uses rigid and blah, blah, blah, blah, rigid aircrafts is to simplify the math. The fact of the matter is though, when you fly the plane, it's always flown like the earth is stationary and flat. This is objective. The globalist position is that gravity pulls it down perfectly so that you don't have to account for it. I just now talked to an air or a pilot the other day. It always looks flat when you fly. You always fly like it's flat. You go up and down in the layers. Horizontally, it's just objective. So the question was, in the manual, does it say that planes are designed to fly over a flat earth? In every single design, every single manual that explains the design. It's not in the manual. It's not in the manual. Every single manual that designs it ever. Every single. So in the manual, it says the plane flies over a flat earth. Delco says the election question, the electron question was for Whitsitt about gates. Now let me go back to that. That was in particular, they said. Sorry. It was about electrons jumping, wasn't it? Yeah. That's right. They said, here it is. When making very small printed circuits, electrons now physically jump from one gate to another physically. Please actually explain that. Yeah, we had that one. No, but you took the answer and you explained that. It was actually a question for me. It's Austin's question. And the answer is, unlike him saying uncertainty principle, that is what quantum mechanics says, which is that you can never be certain. It can be everywhere in superposition, blah, blah, blah. The truth is that the electron is actually not a physical particle, a physical charge carrying particle of matter. That's a hundred million times smaller than the atom that can never be seen or isolated and has no shape or size, but still has mass. The truth is that it's the terminal end of one unit line of dielectric conduction. The ether was thrown out and then they threw out all of ether physics because they had to save the heliocentric model whenever the Mickels morally happened. And now quantum mechanics is slowly but surely debunking all of particle physics and they're just trying to cling on to and come up with a new theory because they can't look past their scientism religion. So the truth there is that electrons display wave like and particle like behavior. You can do the double split experiment with electrons. That is, you know, that's just a fact. I don't know what fairy tale world you're living in there which say, but that is the fact. That's just, that's called a paradox. You're claiming a duality existing that electron is both a wave and a particle and they're different things. Waves are not things, they're types of motion. Your way over your head, waves are types of motion. I can wave my hand, I can't hand you a wave. And the double split. If you don't, if you don't, if you don't understand what wave possible is, that's fine. If you don't understand what wave possible is, that's fine. We've got to get, article physics has been deep wrongs. The prediction for magnetism for example was long. Thanks for saying your input was very well, very well.  You know, if I get the final word, I'm going to expose you like Matt, the prediction from particle physics for magnetism was wrong for example. So they came up with virtual photon just a concept to fix the math. This happens with electrostatics as well, the exchange of virtual photons. We could go into depth. I'd be happy to have you on, but it seems like you can't debate. So it's all good. The truth is that particle physics is being debunked and it's well known. And to claim something's both a particle and a wave simultaneously is contradictory and paradoxical. It's good you're on the case. They says with it will, we could debate here for a thousand dollar prize if he debunks any of my two points. Let me guess that it's up to your subjective recollection whether or not I debunk it. So it seems like a rigged bet, huh? Do people do that? This one from Jim Pryor says with it, congratulations, you degree gravity works, but you, I think they meant to say you deny gravity works, but still congratulations, you degree gravity works, but still deny it. Are you agree up here? Yeah. Yeah, so like I agree that the effect is real. So like the conceptual convention of 9.8 meters second square, which is treated as a constant for values of math and replication, which is not actually constant. Yeah, of course I agree. We haven't agreed upon average, a convention of things falling. I dispute the cause claim that things that cause that is the bending and warping of space-time. Again, you can actually use science and prove that electrostatics manipulates vectors. So I don't dispute the effect quantification. I dispute the cause claim. Does that electrostatic thing, does that electrostatic thing require certain amounts? James, they're addicted, bro. Yeah, but Austin, I'm just addressing that. You're saying about it and I can accept that we don't know what the cause is for the gravity. There's a couple of explanations. You've come up with electrostatics. Does that rely on the mass of the object? I don't think it's directly proportionate to mass. No, it's actually just an electric bias on the earth. And so you're trying to straw man my position. No, no, no, that was just to gain understanding because my question is then, how does that affect the Shehalian experiment where they measured the deflection of a pendulum towards a mountain? It actually doesn't consistently always happen and that still is intrinsically electrostatic and it's not directly proportionate to mass consistently. So he doesn't know?  And that's 10 to the 36 power stronger than gravity claims to be the medium electrostatic even in a vacuum, even a vantograph generator. Please don't say anything back so we can wrap up the debate because I'm going to not let you guys lie to the audience to end the debate. No, no, no, they don't say electrons get pushed away in electric fields. Rain check, rain check. They measure the rate of the mountain and that agreed with the effect as predicted by gravity. This is a question that just came in. Thank you, gosh, come on folks, you can't take anymore. Delco says we have third party judges for the debate and if you lose you pay nothing. It depends on who the judges are obviously, can't be like anti-flatter. Does that make a living off hating on flatters? It's going to be conspiracy cats and Mr. Sensible, he said. That's super good. This is what Tim Pryor last one says. If they censor you, then why could I sell? Still see, still find you ding dong. Still find you ding dong, thank you. Because again, censor doesn't just mean deleting you off the platform, although a lot of my stuff does get deleted. Also means suppressing something. And so we are admittedly suppressed. And then the anti-flatter there's a propped up and you know how it goes. I want to encourage you folks, check out our guest links for real. We really do appreciate them. There are 700 people watching. So I've got to ask you, have you already checked on the link? Because there's got to be somebody new here that you heard of and you're like, oh, it's like interesting stuff. You can click on their links below in the description box. And if you're listening to this via later on the podcast as well, you can click on their links in the description. This one from Tim Pryor says, no, they're just not going to promote nonsense. You're not censored anybody can find you. All right. Again, can I just say this? Can I say this is important, right? They're censoring all kinds of truth now. I got to close it out with this. You got to just keep speaking the truth no matter what, right? Because if the algorithms were fair, the fact that I have like a 90% viewer duration and my amount of viewer retention is astronomical compared to 99% of audiences on YouTube and content makers should tell you right now that we aren't being fairly equipped with the algorithmic prop, you know, suggestions. So that's the problem. So that's called censorship which is suppression, but whatever, speak the truth regardless, don't cut to censor consensus. You got it. It could be globes just in it for the comedy watching you, Austin, of course. Is that the non sequitur I'm censored? Truth is censored, keep speaking the truth anyway. Whatever. All right, I should say. All right, folks, our guests are looking to the description. What are you waiting for? You can click on their links right now. Culture cats, as well as Mr. Sensible and Flat Earth Test and Wet's It Gets It are all in the description box right now. What are you waiting for folks? Click on those links. We appreciate all of our guests. So huge thank you Wet's It Gets It, Flat Earth Test, Mr. Sensible and Culture Cats. It's been a true pleasure to have you guys. My pleasure. My pleasure, thanks for having me. Thank you. This is a wild one.  I love your passion. So stick around folks. I'll be back in just a moment with updates on future upcoming debates. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here. I want to say seriously, we really do appreciate our guests. I want to say whether you be a Flat Earth or a Global Earther, hey, you can check out and try to understand their views at their channel, especially in light of what was said at this debate. We do highly encourage you. You can click on those links below. We really do appreciate our guests. And one way that you can support them is through, yeah, by clicking on their links, checking out their channel, and hey, maybe you'll stick around and you'll really enjoy it. You'll be like, hey, that was awesome. I'm gonna stick around here. It was fun. So I want to say though, my dear friends, let me fix this here, almost there. Thanks for your patience. We are excited to have you here.  We really are glad that you hang out with us. Seriously, tonight I really enjoy it. These guys just, I love their passion. I love their energy. And these guys do have passion and energy.  Like there's a number of times where I just, I'm like, this is a fun community. So we hope you've enjoyed this folks. Want to let you know about some sweet upcoming stuff in particular, my dear friends, if you did not know this, this Saturday is our second big conference. It is a full day of debates, seven debates in particular. My dear friends, this is gonna be huge. I am absolutely pumped. You have got to check this conference out. And you might be like, James, what, what conference are you talking about? Well, let me show you just a couple of things. We are, as you can see on the far right side of the screen, doing a crowd fund. We are 72% of the way, as you can see on that meter on the far right. And that is regarding raising funds for the venue. So the venue by itself, we're shooting for the goal of $2,000. That covers most of the venue costs. It's actually about 3,000. It's just shy of 3,000. But that gives us a safety cushion because we are selling tickets as well. That is frankly the main source of revenue, but nonetheless, the crowd fund is a helpful safety net. And this is voluntary. So in other words, I've got to tell you all the debates this weekend, fully free. You can watch them live for free. So it's not like we've done it before and we're testing out different things. So we might go back to this model. We used to do it where half of the debates you would have to throw in a minimum of $3. And in that case, you get to watch them live for free. And if you didn't, you'd still get to watch them. It was just that they'd be released a day later and you get to see them. The way or the reason that we do that or have done that in the past is because it helps us raise funds to cover the costs. Last time we broke even. It was almost exactly even. I think it was a small loss, but we're okay. It's an investment in the channel. We know that people really enjoy these in-person debates. It's a lot of fun. And also it's a lot of fun for people who might be able to go there. That's why I'm gonna link two things in the old chat. In particular, let me first link, my dear friends, the tickets link. So if you happen to be in the Texas area, for real, especially Dallas, Fort Worth, highly encourage you check out this huge debate as it is going to be monstrous. I should say this whole conference. But not only that, as I mentioned, the crowdfund. So that link to tickets is in the description box. In addition though, the link for the crowdfund is in the description box as well. In fact, I'm gonna put that into the old live chat as well. So if you can make it in-person epic, that's amazing.  But if you're like, no, Jesus is way too far, but I'm willing to throw in like three bucks because I plan on watching the debates and it'll be really fun. And I'm happy to throw in a few bucks just to help support the cause and because I appreciate you putting these on for free. Because you guys have got plans. This Saturday, I'm telling you, it's going to be huge. And so Trish in live chat is like, no James not paying for debates. But I gotta say, Trish, one thing to consider is, let's say that you watch the debates this weekend. We're saying, hey, we normally put them behind a paywall. That's what we've done in the past. But we're saying, hey, this time are you willing to meet us halfway, throw in a few bucks? Now maybe you're like, I'm not even gonna watch them. Like, all right, fair enough, then I can see why. But at the same time, if you support the vision of a neutral platform so that everybody gets their fair shot of making their case on a level playing field, that's another reason where it's like, hey, for less than the price of a cup of coffee, you can help support that cause as we try to do that as best as we possibly can. But like I said, this is a way in which we say, hey, there's no paywall at all. None, this time. Now we might go back to that and it just depends on what works best for the channel. So in that case, it might be that Trish, it might be that it might actually be behind a paywall and which case you won't be watching them in the future if that is the case. So in this case, we're saying, hey, it is free to the public, but we wanna say if you are up for it, we do appreciate any support as it really does mean a lot. And so let me show you some of these things. In particular, DebateCon Part Two is our second conference. The first one was in January, it was a huge success. People loved it and were like, hey, let's do this again, we can do even better. And this one is even better. We expect that it may actually sell out. That's why if you wanna buy tickets for in-person debates, highly encourage you to check it out. For example, you can see on screen, these are some of the epic debates that are gonna happen. For example, in the far right of your screen, this is one of the big favorites, Aaron Raugh and Daniel Hukicachu. Seriously, it's gonna be massive. That you don't wanna miss, my dear friends. We are absolutely excited about it. So, among others, you can see on the far left side of the screen, Destiny versus Nuance Pro. That's on whether or not Biden is doing a great job or not. That's gonna be a juicy controversial one. Not only that, but in the middle of the screen, Matt Delanty versus Destiny, the unstoppable force versus the immovable object. We're absolutely pumped for that, you guys. Seriously, that's gonna be an epic one that's on the bodily autonomy argument. We are thrilled about that, seriously. It's gonna be really fun. So, not only that, let's see if I got this right here. Bear with me. Thanks, Tim Pryor. Appreciate your super chat support. It really does mean a lot. And, Malavius says, I'll be supporting no matter what decision you make. Appreciate that. Seriously, it really does mean a lot. Do appreciate it in live chat. It says, have you considered contacting Tim Pryor about being a debate con super sponsor? I hear he's loaded. That's funny. Appreciate that. And not only that though, my dear friends, you've got some amazing stuff coming up. So, let me show you. For these debates, you might be thinking like, oh, okay, it's an in-person debate conference, I get it, but what is the crowd fund exactly? Well, Indiegogo is what we use for the crowd fund. So, this is just like Kickstarter or GoFundMe. It's just a platform that's set up so that people can make these donations. And it's so easy, because you might be wondering, like, oh, is it easy? I mean, do I have to create an account and put in my email and all that? No, actually, as you can see on screen, you can actually sign in with Facebook, for example. It is a breeze. You can move on through, super easy. And we do appreciate any donation as the smallest perk, as you can see on screen is just, if you look, like I said, less than the price of a cup of coffee. If you put in three bucks, that really does make a difference. So, we do appreciate that. And not only that, let's see, where is this? There are other perks. So, for example, the top right of the screen right now, let me update it. You can send a super chat in. You're like, well, can you do a super chat if you don't? Well, here's the thing. You can put in super chats during these debates, but we can't guarantee that we're gonna be able to read them. It's not for sure that we're gonna have the time. The reason is the in-person audience is like who we actually prioritize, because they bought a ticket to support the event. So, super chats might get read, but I would say don't count on it if you put in a super chat during one of those debates. But you can guarantee that you can have one of your questions read by putting in the Indiegogo at the, as you can see at the top right of your screen, at the $50 level, we'll actually read your question before the in-person audience asks their questions. So, that's a cool perk, in case you wanna be sure that your question gets asked during this huge epic event. But not only that, you might be wondering, well, James, have you ever done this whole crowdfund before? I mean, was it successful? Yes, absolutely. In particular, we did this to raise the honorarium costs for Dr. Michael Shermer and his epic debate with Mike Jones on, is Christianity dangerous? That was about a year ago, or almost a year. Then, we also did it this spring with Matt Delanti versus Dr. Kenny Rose, that was another epic debate, as well as DebateCon. This was another huge debate, or actually, yeah, that's right. So, it's been about two years almost that we've been doing this crowdfund strategy, and it really has helped a ton. And so, that's something that we're excited about is we wanna say thanks for all your support. You might be wondering, like, James, I wanna watch the debates, but you know, I don't even believe that you have any costs.   Here are some of the costs, because the truth is, if you wanna do something, like, let's say, host an event like this, I wish we could find a free venue. Once in a while, if it's a religion debate, like, religion, atheism, once in a while, we can find a church that's willing to host it, even then, sometimes. Like, Unitarian Universalists, we had to pay. But sometimes, we find a church that's like, hey, you can do it for free. In this case, we couldn't find that, because with political debates, they're kinda like, eh, we're not really into the whole political thing. So, here's our budget. As you can see on screen, the blue chunk there is the venue cost. It's pretty big. So, the venue is actually pretty pricey. This time, the flight costs were actually pretty significant. So, you can actually see those in gray. Those are actually bigger right now. I don't know if you guys have seen the flight costs are more than usual. So, for example, we're flying in Destiny from Miami. We are flying in actual Justice Warrior, a.k.a. Sean Fitzgerald from New York City, Jackson Henkel from out in Los Angeles. There are a lot of people that we're flying in. We're also covering the gas for people who are driving. So, for example, Nuance Bros. driving from Houston. So, that's about, probably about like 290 bucks, maybe 300 bucks, just for gas. Also, hotel nights. As you can see, speaker hotel rooms, the orange chunk there on the pie graph, that's another cost. And you can ask the speakers if you have any dollars for your, like, James, like, that's what you say, but I'm a skeptic. I don't think you're actually paying. You could just ask the speakers, like, hey, did James actually put you up? Just send him an email if you want or tweet him, whatever, is, yes, we actually do foot the bill for these costs. And so, this is a big leap for us. A lot of people are like, James, but you're old money bag, James, like, I'm a grad student, actually. So, I probably make less than you guys out there in terms of grad student, like, salaries are pretty small. So, on average, I probably make less. I'm okay because, trust me, like, we've done this before. I feel really confident about it, so I'm not trying to scare you and be like, oh, you know, we're in trouble, and you know, be afraid or something like that. And poor James, that's not what I'm trying to do. But I'm trying to say, it is something where it's like, this is, for me, a financial kind of a risk. Like, we're taking a leap here. And it's something where it's like, yeah, like, this could kind of crash and burn it, like, when we do this. We don't think it will, it's calculated risk, but you are saying, hey, if you love this channel and you feel like you get value from it, and you're like, hey, I like the vision, James, of providing a neutral platform so that everybody has their chance to make their case on a level playing field, which we really do try to do. We try to do it right down the middle as best as we can. We're not perfect, but that is important for us to be like, globe earth, flat earth, Christian, atheist. We really try to do, be impartial. My goal is that people wouldn't even know what my positions are, that it would be so impartial that people would be like, James, are you a Christian, an atheist, flat earth, globe earth? Like, we really want it to be that fair. So if you believe in that vision, if you think that there's value in that, or if you're like, man, I watch your debates a lot, I enjoy them, and I even, you know, would enjoy watching them this Saturday, we do appreciate anything you can give. But in either case, maybe you're like, man, I actually can't right now. It's something that I can't do. It's, you know, whatever reason it is. Still watch the debates, enjoy them, and don't feel guilty. Like, we're happy to have you no matter what, seriously. So I really do appreciate you. But yeah, like I said, we're just saying, hey, three bucks, less than the price of a cup of coffee. So that's the trick. Do appreciate it says, do you pay yourself too, because you should. Amazingly, for the first one, the only like compensation that I received was just through, and it really wasn't because it had to go toward the cost anyway, because we needed the money to cover the cost. It was the additional like ad revenue on YouTube. And so this one, my hope is that we could cover the cost and that like I would just be benefiting from the extra ad revenue, et cetera. Cause some of the debates will have super chats come in. So if that happens, then I'm counting on the super, like the YouTube revenue. But right now we want to, if we do have money extra, we want to use it for future debates, like future events in particular, like in-person events. If we have a cushion, cause last time we broke even, so we didn't get to that cushion point, cause we were hoping that we'd have maybe like a thousand or two thousand extra left over that we could say, okay, we're gonna put that towards the next one. We broke even, and don't get me wrong, breaking even I think is actually good. It was our first one. It's kind of like, hey, it's not bad. I mean, to break even on your first one. But nonetheless, my hope is that we can do that this time where we save extra funds and then we say, hey, let's put them for the next one. So we do plan on doing more in-person debates. So that's for sure. Paul says, what's the best way to donate? Thanks for asking, Paul. The crowd fund was just linked at the top of the chat right now, and it's also in the description box, is the best way to donate. So it is the smallest percent taken away. So in other words, like YouTube, it's cool that YouTube has the Super Chat feature, but if you put it in a Super Chat right now, like let's say it was 10 bucks, like YouTube actually takes three bucks out of that, roughly. But if you put it into Indiegogo, basically, I think it's like they take like 50 cents. So it's nice that Indiegogo, they take a smaller proportion, a significantly smaller proportion. So thank you for asking that, Paul. But glad to have you in the old live chat. Dave H, glad to have you here. Ryan, glad to have you with us. As well as one, Uber Fried. Thanks for coming by. I see you there in the old live chat. Oli O-T, thanks for coming by. As well as Ryan and Pizza Sauce. Glad you're here. Joa Prates, let me know if I'm saying it right. We're glad you're here. Mr. White, glad to have you with us. Living Room Speakers, thanks for that feedback during the debate, letting me know that Mr. Sensible was waiting to speak. I'm glad you let me know that. And let's see. I'm pretty tired, you guys. I can't believe those debaters have got so much energy. Toward the end of this, I was like, oh my gosh, these guys, these guys are like super high energy. Dingley Bombas says I just donated on the Indiegogo. Keep up the good work, based middle guy. Thanks, Dingley Bombas. Seriously, we really do appreciate it. This is exciting for us as this is gonna be huge. For me right now, I'm just super excited to go there tomorrow to Dallas. Because tomorrow I'll go, in the morning I'm gonna fly out from Denver and I'm gonna go there and we're gonna start setting up shop in the afternoon at 2.30.  So I'm excited about that. But yeah, we appreciate all your support. It is at this point, it's only maybe 29 hours that the crowd fund is still up and then it is done. So this is like your last chance if you're kind of like, yeah, I was thinking about it. Like hey, now's the time to do it. We appreciate your support. Trip Canada says the globe is a chicken nugget. Thanks for letting me know that. And let's see, Dingley Bombas glad to see you. Yeah, I appreciate your support. Seriously, it really does mean a lot. Do appreciate it says, holy smokes, three out of $10. Yeah, YouTube takes a chunk out of super chats, like 30% almost. In fact, I think it's usually 30%. It vacillates to a small, for some reason it's not even a strict percent. It can change. I don't know why that is. But it depends on like, I think the amount given or something, but yeah. Chris G, I see you there in the live chat. It says, woo woo, ready for Saturday. I am pumped, Chris, seriously. And yeah, Chris, we've got so much to talk about. But we have time tomorrow where we can hammer it out. But I'm so glad to see you. Chris, is it too late for me to call? I feel bad, I've been calling you. Chris G has been helping immensely. Like, and to the point where that's why I'm like, Chris, I'm so sorry I've called you like a trillion times this week. Because I can't do this alone. There's no way, like, and that's why I appreciate you, Chris, seriously. But yeah, Chris G, glad to see you in the old live chat. Alan Norstrand, glad to see you. Says, great debate. Thanks for saying that, Alan.  And I really appreciate the speakers. They're the lifeblood of the channel. They make this fun. Seriously, they make it a blast. So, do appreciate it. Says, we appreciate you, James. Thank you for that. Seriously, that means a lot. I appreciate that. And Chris G says, yeah. Says, nah, man, I'm up all night. Okay, cool. Wait. Oh, okay, cool. Okay, then I'm gonna call you. But yeah, so I'm gonna call Chris, everybody. I gotta go call him. Let me see. I'm gonna do this on air. Isn't this great? But yeah, it's a... One time it was funny. I called someone. And when I did, here's what's funny. It went to voicemail and it was like, so and so is not available, or like the number you're trying to reach is not available. And you know what? It reads out the number, like of the person that you're trying to call. So it'll say the number you're trying to reach. Four, three, two, eight, seven. You know, it read it out loud so that I accidentally docked somebody's phone number during the debate. It was a debater who was like, I think they showed up later something. But anyway, Olivia says, have you heard back from Professor Dave yet? Not yet. I appreciate you asking. I haven't actually reached out to him for like months about a debate. I can't remember who the last one was. I can't remember the last one that I reached out to him about. I think it was maybe creation evolution I can't remember. But I wanna say thank you guys for all your support. I love you guys seriously. It really does mean a lot. So I'm so pooped. What about you guys? Dingley Bumbus says, whoa, call-ins, new content. We might try that. At some point, we're gonna see. Davey says, James, hope it was the sex that you were calling. No. But you guys, I love you seriously. Thanks for your support. I'm gonna see you guys next time. Keep zipping out the reasonable from the unreasonable. Dewey Khan. Dewey Khan, this weekend. We're thrilled folks. Have a good rest of your day. Hi, Chris. I hope I didn't wake you.