Thanks for having us Yeah, it's up on the screen now Okay All right let's do it um So we're gonna I'm gonna cover a very basic thing. Let me start the timer Hopefully this audio good. I may not have shared with sound. Sorry. I got a reshare Off to a great start So share sound There we go All right Just to cover some basics here people claim that we live on a ball Not that one's also is embarrassing but according to the globe model There is a point on the globe where the alleged curvature of the earth begins to obstruct distant objects under the globe This point is referred to as the horizon and is marked by necks on the diagram One can determine the distance to the alleged globe horizon in miles by taking the square root of the observer's height and feet and Multiplying by 1.225 or you can simply use an online calculator like this one or this one According to the global very point on the very simple stuff people say that most disappear over the curve of the earth That's how people discovered thousands of years ago that the earth's a ball. We were all told this we've been looked into it That wasn't the case now the globe claim has changed since then which is pretty hilarious So let's define horizon It's the line at which the earth's surface and the sky appear to meet So it's an apparent it's an apparent location Rise on the globe. There's a physical tangible real Horizon called a geometric horizon curve of the earth now We were all stupid clerfs and we can just go out to the ocean and watch at the earth's a ball because things go behind this physical curve But once we started seeing hundreds of miles further than that The claim changed to oh, we never see the actual curve of the earth We can never see the geometric horizon. We only see the apparent one, but I promise there's a real one there And if you deny it, you're crazy, which is convenient. So let's look into this We're zooming in on a boat here as you can see the bottom of that boat is partially obscured Of course, it's in water and you can see the horizon is behind the boats Isn't that interesting? So obviously that part of the bottom of the boat is obstructed Doesn't have anything to do with the earth being a ball the horizon is behind the boats Okay Here's this magical earth curve again looking at a boat and There goes the boats So of course you're changing your aperture as you zoom in and out your optical limit And then you see a horizon relative to that and you see objects.  It must go over the curve of the earth Which is what Aristotle allegedly did without a telescope or anything mind you of course And that proved the earth was a ball thousands of years ago So basic stuff the sky is ramping down to your eye level converging into the Horizontal vanishing line that people call the horizon That's actually where the word horizontal came from the word horizon and the ground's ramping up to eye level Converging into this horizontal vanishing line. The horizon is merely an apparent location The horizon is defined as again where the sky appears To meet the ground now of course the sky doesn't actually converge into the ground It's just an optical location So we have a limit to how far we can see relative to optical angles and atmosphere conditions and the atmost conditions also move the horizon back and forth closer to you further away specific angles are called the propagation angles and These are going to be reception and propagation angles relative to your Resolution limit of the for example for the human eye that falls down below 0.2 degrees. You can't see it 0.02 degrees. So anyway, optical diffraction line mirroring zone there if you see this picture obviously the horizon is not physical It looks like the boat's up in the air, but the horizon appears to be down here. That's not the curve of the earth The boat's on the water above it So here's something called um diffractions is looking at Rayleigh criteria from harvard university They did an experiment where they showed two lasers actually begin to converge as you change the Aperture now people claim that sunsets are impossible on a flat earth They're gonna continue to say that until they die probably But this is actually for the honest people that aren't going to lie about the evidence Here you can see you can look at the left picture and say well Let's say that's the sun the circle that is the sun as we change the aperture The bottom of that sun begins to disappear and merge into that line in the middle It's called the diffraction line because you're changing the aperture. This is exactly what we see with the sun So if the earth was actually round and specifically a sphere that's curving at a specific rate In the horizon we see would drop while we gain altitude But that's not what we see as you can see right here. We're going up and the horizon's going up from its original point So that's an optical effect based on perspective that the earth is supposedly curving down away from us But i'm going up and the horizon is going up again As you see here, the horizon's going up and down throughout the day It's just an optical effect in a parent location So the sky appears to meet the ground when it when it's clear outside you can see further That's all there is to it, which is why flat earth exists. We went and tested the globe claim and it isn't real So that's all I really want to cover because I feel like no one ever really seems to want to address this The globe claims there's a physical geometric horizon that blocks things in the distance But what we see in reality is that the horizon is just apparent It just goes up and down it changes based on atmospheric conditions And we have a limit to how far we can see believe it or not contrary to the claims that are absurd and popular nowadays We cannot see forever. You are not superman And you know this intuitively that you can't see forever because that's an insane claim Now I do want to cover this part again because this will certainly come up people claim that sunsets are impossible on a flat earth This is just absurd Again, this is an experiment done by harvard showing the Rayleigh criteria based on the diffraction line So you have an eye level You have a diffraction line and then the angles relative to that diffraction line is what causes it to disappear Because it can no longer be resolved and when you lose resolvability You can no longer see what it is that you're looking at Then it's specifically relative to the reception and propagation angles of what you're observing And that's in relation to the eye level, which is why again this circle here The position of these lasers that are perceived as circles did not change in the experiment What changed was the aperture. So again, it's just an optical diffraction line Uh, the horizon is not physical. It's just a parent And if you're going to claim that there is a real physical tangible geometric horizon called the curvature of the earth You're going to actually need to tangibly and physically prove that not just beg the question So that's what happened the globe changed to move the goalpost to claim like, oh, you're so stupid You can't you don't know we see the curve of the earth every day when things disappear They change it to oh, we never see the curve of the earth, but I promise that it's there So that's pretty much the basic tenets of this discussion. Um, that's a little over half my back here and be but hopefully It's clear some stuff up for you guys because it seems to be a pickup There you go. It's all right Awesome. All right. We'll end the screen share there. Thank you so much for that. What's it gets it? And we're going to kick it over to Karen for your up to six minute introductory statement Thanks for being here. Um, all righty. Thank you so much for having me Well, um What I can say in addition to what wits it said because I agree with all of that and those are all, um, wonderful observations and good points and But one thing that we have done as flat earthers that that I haven't really seen globe earthers do is actually go out and try to physically measure the curvature of the earth which They do give us a given size unlike the the the lights in the sky that we cannot see We cannot actually physically go measure like that is just beyond anybody's capability to basically Go and and verify whether or not that's true. We all are here on the face of the earth and we all have the ability to um, put those numbers to the test and while The the globe math that they give you for the lights in the sky does work out because they put everything so far away You know, it could it could be anything up there, you know The the numbers don't really mean that that's reality But they do give us a size and shape for the globe earth And that is what we like to put to the test because that is that is what we actually are physically standing on so Um, if I could get a screen share Let me see Share my second desktop here This is actually a pdf. It's um, it's a 120 page pdf that was put together by FECore, which is a group of People who were questioning the shape of the earth and we all went and spent a lot of money and a lot of time and body equipment and documented very well Where we went and we tried to measure the Define curvature. Um, every time we did this we found none. So, um, you know This pdf right here is just basically an outline of the measurements we took over like balaton and hungry It was the that is like the largest lake in europe Um, so there was plenty of positions there for us to get multiple measurements over Um, a few over the week that we were there They also that the team went and did the same thing in the netherlands And at each time that they went and measured they were able to observe um things on the opposite side of the lake the source of the laser light And um things that they shouldn't see that were things that should be beyond the geometric curvature of the earth So if you believe that the earth is a ball and you believe That the water conforms to the outside of the shape of this ball There is going to be that should be the place where there should be the most obvious curvature um, but Alas, there is none. Um, I don't really have time to go over the whole Of 120 page document. It is there for um, I can give anybody the link who wants to read it, but um all of the surrounding Data was taken temperature humidity Um distances were were well documented We had we even have a video of it where we took video observation of all of this stuff that was taken Um, and we found that it was in that the measurements were inconsistent with the Wgs 84 uh ellipsoid model that they supposedly say that the earth is So That is why I am a staunch flat earth or I have seen it proven it measured it with my own eyes Um, so there it is that's really all I have to present at this moment How long is that I still have more time? Um Yeah, I was just I looked at the clock just before you began I think you still got what another two minutes about if you want to devamp, but if not we can kick to the other side Um I guess that's good. All right. Let me let me say one thing. Let me uh, Can we please not use fallacies this and we just to talk about the intellectual aspects of the conversation And fallacies are in and miss one intellectual form. They lack sound reasoning. They are invalid arguments Let's not ad-hom interrupt use straw man's use poisoning the well fallacies are begging the question fallacies are affirming the consequence fallacies Hopefully we can be honest and not use fallacies. Thank you All right. Well, I'll definitely try to make sure there's no mud slinging for sure if we want to end the screen share for now And what we'll do is we'll kick it over to uh oszion for uh our globe side Bitar actually just got here. I messaged him about 10 minutes before we started and like a champ He said he would come in here and be the hero of the evening and fill in So we really appreciate you being here bitar and uh Helping us out here tonight with this conversation. So we'll kick it over to oszion for up to six minutes And then we'll kick it over to you. So thank you oszion for being here as well all right, i'm Oszion and i'm here today to talk about the evidence for a curved earth and I am going to do A screen share also right here And it is of drone footage. Hopefully that sharing looks like it is Sure is all right I'm going to be using drone footage to Demonstrate how this footage is evidence for curved earth and against a flat earth and how you can see curve and an altitude As low as 150 feet above sea level I'm not arguing for a horizon curve, but for curved bodies of water. So check this out I got this drone footage of a ship that's a few thousand feet away As the drone ascends the ship appears to get narrower and taller This is because the surface of the earth curves away from the drone as it ascends If the earth were flat and the ship would appear to get shorter and narrower as it ascends But it doesn't it gets narrower and taller as you can see in the footage Why because the earth is curved Let me explain on a flat surface If you have a side view of a ship and the ship and the observer at the sea level The side view will always have the same ratio of angular size and height and width No matter how far away you are from the ship However, as you go up in altitude the angular size of the height of the ship will change at a greater rate than the Angular size of the width of the ship This would mean the ship will appear to get shorter and narrower as you ascend in altitude on a flat surface However on a curved surface to ratio the angular size of the ship's height and width will not be the same At all distance. This is because the surface of the earth curves away from the observer Blocking the bottom of the ship as the observer gets further away As a result the ship will appear to get shorter as the observer gets further away But in the image you're seeing you're actually going up in altitude up to 150 feet with my drone And as you can see the ship is getting taller And it's actually not changing very much in width. It changed very little In summary if a ship is 2000 feet away horizontally I'm not sure exactly how far away it is. I think it's probably at least a thousand feet away As we raise the camera from sea level to an altitude of 150 feet The ship would appear shorter and narrower on a flat surface But taller and narrower on a curved surface As you can clearly see when the drone ascends the ship appears to be taller and narrower This is consistent with the predictions we made about how the ship would appear on a curved surface The pixel measurements of the ship's height and width at sea level and 150 feet in altitude can Burn this as you can see I put the measurements I used in adobe photoshop The ship's height increased by about 20 percent as the drone ascended and the width decreased by about two percent The fact that the ship's width barely changed is because there is a curved body of water blocking the ship That vanishes when the drone rises in altitude And the drone is maintaining a similar relative distance to the side of the ship facing the drone And I encourage you all to do the same measurements on your own to compare A flat earth hypothesis would predict that the ship would appear to get shorter and narrower as it ascends But the fact that the ship appears to get narrower and taller As it ascends Contradicts a flat earth hypothesis because the only way for the ship to appear to get narrower and taller Is if the surface of the earth is curved In conclusion the footage I've shown you is evidence for curved earth and against the flat earth I have experienced curve and I've tested curved and refuted the flat earth model I know that the earth is curved and it is not flat based upon my own testing and my own evidence So the questions for you guys when we get to that Why did the ship appear to get narrower and taller as the drone ascended instead of shorter and narrower Narrower as a drone goes straight up Which would put it further away from the ship overall And I'm going to conclude my opening there A1. Well, thank you for that. Uh I'm gonna say it wrong again. Ozion. Okay. Oh zone like ozone. I gotta try to remember that. Okay Thanks for that oozian anyways Everybody I just want to remind you that modern day debate is a neutral debate platform where we host debates on science Politics religion you name it. We will host it Uh, we have our six minute intro over here for a guitar Who is new to modern day debate and like I said, we just pulled them in a couple minutes ago. So, uh, you know Depending on your interactions in the past you might have a lot to say here or you might want to have a skeptics talk It's okay. Um, but we're just happy to have you here. So we'll kick it over to you for up to six minutes and thanks again Yeah, so I just want to remind everyone that I was invited like 10 minutes ago And I I study software engineering. I don't study like in the same campus as I as I frequent We have our space engineering other engineers, but software engineering. We only have physics one So I don't know much about physics. Okay Uh, as uh, somebody else from the same university I frequent which is but has an university that could be here and No more about this stuff But I uh know some basics which is enough to to prove that flat earth falls Uh, and that's why I took uh, this object right here This object actually has a twisty puzzle and it has 12 sites And if you take uh, uh, let's suppose this is a ball. Okay, and let's suppose this is the moon And here's the flat earth. Okay. So if you have somebody So, okay, can you see that? Uh, it's uh, no, you can see that But yeah, like imagine somebody who is on this side and somebody who is on this side Okay, they're on different sites and then the moon which is uh a ball is uh over here Then the person who is on the right of the paper and the person who is on the left of the paper They would see uh Different faces of the moon The truth is we always see the same face of the moon and that proves the earth is not flat If the earth was flat, we should see the moon from different perspectives Oh, but maybe the moon is not a three-dimensional object Which is what would happen with three-dimensional objects. Maybe the moon has two dimensions Um, let me find a two-dimensional object here. This will do okay If we have a two-dimensional object People watching it from this perspective as the object moves They would see, uh Imagine just the this is a ring. So they would see from the different perspectives They would see different shapes if the moon is two-dimensional Uh, they would see different shapes. We don't see different shapes of the moon Of course, uh during the same time, of course, I'm talking about the same time simultaneously someone here It's someone here the moon Uh, we see the moon differently over different times when I'm talking about simultaneously Uh from different perspectives just you should see something different uh So this proves that the earth is not flat if the earth was flat and the moon is three-dimensional then Uh, we should see different uh faces of the moon if the moon is true dimensional Then we we should see simultaneously. I'm talking about the same time. We should see different, uh Can you warn me, please when I have like 30 seconds left?  Yeah, all right No, you usually uh, usually I just keep the loose eye on the clock there, but Yeah, you got you got like two minutes and two and a half minutes here Yeah, something else that I want to talk about is that we actually proven on a lab with something called the cavendish experiment I would share my screen uh had to show it to you, but uh, we don't have Like I I didn't separate the the material before But yeah, we've proven on a lab that mass affects mass uh, and what this would uh The consequence of this in a flat plane is that the further away you move from the center of mass of the object The more mass you'd have behind you So imagine as you move towards the ice wall You'd have more mass behind you attracting it and it would feel like climbing up a hill And that of course is not what we experience. I'm not I'm not I'm in brazil right now buildings You are not built. Uh, no are not built sideways because we are uh supposedly close Closer to the to the ice wall So, yeah, uh, because we've already proven on a lab with the cavendish experiment that mass affects mass Uh, we also don't see on the world what we would expect and also from the cavendish experiment and from, uh, uh Uniform circular movement circular movement. I think that's how it would be called in english We can conclude if I'm not mistaken the third law of kapler I hope I did the math right if I remember my high school days, but it's Period square equal period square over radius to the third would equal a constant Which is four pi square over the gravitational constant times the the mass of the of the object. So that's uh, uh, A law, you know from the cavendish experiment and from circular linear movement that should happen You know from from planets orbiting the the same thing And okay, you guys don't believe the earth is orbiting anything So why is it that when we look at Jupiter and its moons like, uh, Europa and guanimida that we can see clearly see Uh with telescopes, why is it that their periods and their uh, radiuses obey this law as they should if they Uh, if the gravitation was true, that's where kapler laws were taken from. So yeah, that's all I had to say All right, excellent. Well, everybody's had their introductory statements there So, uh, thank you everybody for that. We're going to kick an open discussion in a moment here But I want to remind everybody in the live chat to keep it friendly That's what we're trying to do over here at modern day debate And also, uh, we're doing a q and a at the end of this conversation So if you have a question for any of our speakers here tonight and get them in now So they can be asked nice and early. So let's kick it into the open discussion everybody Yeah, Kepler's law said nothing. Let's kick it. Kepler's laws had Kepler's laws had nothing to do But literally gravity didn't exist at all Nothing to do with it. It was he actually thought that uh, uh, sun was singing and it was an acoustic orbit It was based on acoustics So it didn't mean to do with gravity and it just watched the relationship with the stuff in the sky and so that's just not true Cavendish the guy that did it didn't account for electrosaxes just 10 to the 36 power stronger than gravity He's even claimed to be can't eliminate that variable and actually whenever you do it It's consistently falls outside of them are margin of error and you have like two 10 tele Kilogram balls you're trying to measure a force equivalent to like part of one cell And it's far beyond the margin of error and then of course you're just begging the question because you're not controlling the variable of electrostatics And ozzie and what I want to know from you because I'm not going to take over the whole debate But I want to know this right you saw my my intro right and I showed that we took the drone We went up and the horizon rises with the drone Yeah And in your video you showed that the horizon rises with the drone Yes, no it should be should be dropping down away from me and we saw the horizon was behind the boat And and you said that it shouldn't get taller as you get higher Getting further above the waves in the water in front of the boat so that now you can see from above the water No, the water was The water was smooth. It's a lake here on during the summer the waters were very very smooth. There weren't waves Okay, first of all first of all The wave there were waves in the water if you want to show the whole entire eyes again We all we all saw the waves, but it's not even just waves. It's basic perspective, bro I don't know what basic respect.  It's okay. Keep going with it You realize that things ramp up optically due to perspective. Yes or no Rant so as you get closer to them, they look bigger as you get further away from it It looks smaller. Yes. And depending on the refraction You have in the air it can affect it too Non sequitur. We're not talking about the angular size and I'm not talking about Going very far from the object. It went up to 150 feet. The object is was close in So why did it get taller? So I predicted So I did my own experiment forget the whole body of science Forget kepler forget newton forget everything, you know So if I just go basic perspectives, right basic geometry basic surfaces basic shapes If I was to go um Up Right that when I look at if the object is flat like two-dimensional if I go up I'm going it's actually going to look narrower Faster than it would or it looked shorter Faster than it would look narrower But my drone footage when I go up this ship appears to look taller Faster than it looks narrower. So what explains that phenomenon? Okay Big rent Not answering the question. I'm just going to ask the question again. You brought up angular size. That was weird. That wasn't relevant due to perspective Bro, please answer this question due to perspective as things move away from you in the distance does the ground Appear to ramp up. Yes or no? No Okay, so this is the problem you're denying basic Reality so you can go look at anything you can go look at on the street lights down the streets What happens is the top starts to go down and the bottom starts to go up It's a fact that due to perspective. Um, it's a fact No Finally look at a picture of railroads like if you look at a picture Standing in a railroad and the picture is straight to the horizon. What are the what are the railroad tracks doing? They go away to the horizon So if I I have an elevation too, so it's coming up to my eye level If I lay down flat on the tracks and look down They don't raise up. I actually can't see that far when I'm at the altitude Of the tracks, right? Yeah, I'm knowing basic perspective now. Is this what we've addressed to I am arguing for my footage. That's it So if you want to deny that my footage doesn't show that just more the ship is exposed Because the waves were not blocking the ship. That's fine So they were not waves either the water was not blocking the ships You're trying to claim the waves were 20 foot tall the waves were not 20 foot tall The waves were maybe like six inches tall So there weren't many waves. It wasn't on the ocean It was on a lake Okay, can I share my screen real fast? I want to I want to go back to to what you said about kepler law You said oh kepler was about You said kepler was about uh, uh, uh, kinematics Sorry It's called kinematics, which is how bodies move in relation to each other not gravity Which is dynamics and it would he thought that there was like a Heavenly strong of the spheres that was played and that the acoustics caused everything to move around each other They use kinematic equations to describe the ratio in which the bodies move in relation to each other real fast as i'm sharing the screen Hey ozzie, can you tell me does it do these street lights look like they're going down in the distance? Do the street lights? No, they actually look like they're the same elevation Okay, so now in react now all of these street lights are the same heights Yes, obviously due to perspective it looks like they're dropping down as they get further away everyone all Based on my elevation can see it based on my elevation. Yes It looks like it's dropping down and it looks like the ground's coming up based upon my elevation Okay, so the things above our eye level look like they're coming down Things below it look like they're going up to a convergence point and things get smaller and pressed to that convergence point, right? I'm going with my foot. Are you denying that something would have that the water is not blocking the ship? Are you with the water blocking the ship? Why was the water blocking the ship? Oh, I was a water Why was why was 20% of the ship being blocked by water? It wasn't it was underneath The water because that was there normally floating floating so 20% of the ship 20% of the ship became exposed as my drone rose to only 150 feet in elevation. Why is that this doesn't explain it? This doesn't explain it 20% is a stretch. It sounds like you're not measured it. I measured it. It was 20% Super honest because when I asked you does the bottom look like it's ramping up you said no Now I had to go share my screen and show the whole audience So you're seeing that wait, wait, wait, you're seeing that Well, well, you're pointing out are you seeing the cars in the distance appear like they're taller than they should be Like the cars the taxis in the distance Is he looking no, no Will you please be honest you said that the ground doesn't look like it ramps up due to perspective Everyone heard you say that I had to go get a basic picture of street lights. This is day one perspective. It's Dude the bottom the top of the lights look like they're going down The bottom look like they're going up and it's getting smaller converging to the middle So yes, the ground looks like it ramps up just like I'd laid out in my opener So would you like to not avoid it? Don't avoid it. Well, you acknowledge your 40 might evidence It's nothing to do with my evidence at all You can't explain Why this why the lake was blocking 20% of the height of the ship that was actually above the water Yeah, we can't even get there because that has nothing to do Yes, it does with what you're describing. No, it doesn't literally does that That's why I brought it up But you can't even be honest about it.  So can you please concede? Depends on my elevation how much it Perspectively looks like it changes It'll relevant to my argument. So we're addressing my argument or your argument if you want to address your argument That's fine that we can poke at that. But my argument had nothing at all to do that. But that so why Why was the water blocking 20% of the ship? Water at least low water is below the observer So it begins to ramp up as you increase your elevation Then it changes how much it's optically ramped up because you've changed your eye level thus your diffraction limit relative to the Reception and propagation angles of the object that you're viewing. This is basic riley criteria Of resolvability and angular resolution. Can you please acknowledge that you were wrong? And yes, due to perspective things ramp up from the ground No has nothing to do with what I what I showed In my video nothing at all to do with what I showed in my video So it has so you you still can't explain why 20% more of the ship became exposed When my drone went up in elevation Right, I literally explain that you did not literally. Yes, I did Yes, he did Yeah, so if the ship was flat, right, so wait let Karen be finished man.  Well, I was she was speaking so Anyways, go ahead Karen When your drone goes up in elevation it increases the angle you're that you're viewing angle. So more of it is visible Yeah, like on the on the topic You said you said very simple. You said that when the ship goes away What's it? You said that we don't see anymore due to refraction. That's what you said, right? The diffraction not refraction diffraction. Yeah, okay. Do you know the difference between diffraction and refraction? Why are you asking me when you just completed them? Yeah, of course So our fraction is is based on change from one medium to another how light track travels Which it doesn't by the way from one medium to another and then you have diffraction Which is actually about the dissipation of the light, right relative to obstruction or limitation an aperture diffraction happens when you have an object like That famous pink white album for example that that would be the fraction when the light goes through And when passing through an object Uh, I would be changes. It's rough fraction. Also, that's two different medium Yeah, but diffraction is based on if say if I look out to my eye level So say I'm looking at a mountain that's a hundred feet and I'm standing 10 feet above the ocean If I look out my eye level is at 10 feet So that means that the ocean is going to reach my eye level before the top of the mountain Because they're going to converge down to what's called the diffraction limit or a diffraction line That's where the eyes can no longer resolve The information because of the reception and propagation angles relative to your angular resolution limit That's diffraction diffraction and Rayleigh criteria relative to perspective I would love if we can just cover the basics honestly like yes perspective makes things look like they're going down From above you it makes things look like they're ramping up below you and they go to converge It's like railroad tracks like here and be tried to explain to you flip them on their side. They would do the same thing This is just basic perspective depends where you're at what your elevation is all types of things but Were you saying that I am below the horizon? Are you saying that I am below the horizon? I am physically below the horizon. Were you saying that? I might the horizon is not Was I physically below the ship? Physically below the the bottom of the ship I don't I don't know where you are. No, no. I know he went above it. You went above it. That's the whole point It started at zero It started at the surface of the water or like an inch above the surface of the water However, where the drone height is, right? Okay And then it rose 150 feet in altitude. So did the did the drone start below the bottom of the ship? Below the bottom of the ship. I mean, yes It would be really close, right? Because if the ship is on the water and then your drone's on the boat and it's pretty much the same height But do you agree that well, let's talk about the drone sitting on the beach Do you agree that due to perspective the water is going to look like it's ramping up from the perspective of the drone? Yes or no Could the drone at zero altitude?  It doesn't Okay, things in the distance as I go up as I go up in altitude. It does. Sorry, I interrupted you I don't get it man. I don't know why you guys deny basic perspective. You can go out and look at a street It shows like a real state of despair Be honest like you're you're denying like basic perspective. We should be able to get past this It's basic perspective So you're you're avoiding my video footage. You're avoiding what I saw with my own eyes That's all we've been talking about. Okay. So so yeah, so I saw I experienced Curvature I experienced where 20% of the ship became exposed not because the ship was going away But because my drone went straight up in altitude in a matter of seconds Now I change your angle of view when you did that. No Wow, so you don't understand basic things, bro. You don't like come on, bro, like So You're not changing your angle of view up and down it is. Yes, but no the angle of view is the same The angle of view is the whole thing's the same The angle of view of the camera doesn't change unless you change the aperture size if I remember correctly anything about cameras So you're seeing the angle of view of the camera changes Were you seeing the amount of land that becomes exposed? Changes as a drone goes up in altitude that would be correct No, the angle of view doesn't change the angle relative to the ground relative to the ground I didn't change the angle of view of the camera at all Dude does your angle of view get wider relative to the ground as you get higher yesterday? I know the angle stays the same The angle stays the same the amount of ground I see the the square footage of ground I see changes As they go up in altitude the angle the aperture doesn't change with my camera angle is not the same as aperture Whatever the angle of view My my field of view with the camera you see it's 150 degrees or whatever that is doesn't change The field of view doesn't change On my camera as it goes straight up in altitude Yeah, that's a strong man. We're a strong man. We know that your your lens has a certain Angle no, no, you're not listening. It's not a strong man Yes, it is listen, dude If I'm like 10 feet tall and I'm looking at a really tall building So there's an angle coming out from my eye Okay Now that the bottom of the angle is going to hit the ground first thus be cut off Thus the angle of perception The viewing angle that is perceivable Resolvable is smaller on the bottom in the top It's smaller as I get higher that angle gets bigger This is basic respect. No, it doesn't change. So the angle of your eyes It's not denying science.  This is why karen I brought up horizon and then I slid in really criteria So what I found out is people that have debated this for seven years or whatever They don't like they don't grasp perspective. Yeah, I got to find the visual effects I'm just like like this is a basic part of it The globe thinks the horizon is a physical location that blocks things in the distance No, I don't physical intent. Is there a physical geometric horizon? I don't believe so. No, it's it's sort of an optical illusion where the Sky in the ground converge Yeah, well, that's the apparent horizon, which is painfully redundant, but Yeah, the globe claims there's a geometric horizon called the curve of the earth Okay, right like I agree around the corner. There's a curve at the earth You can call that the horizon. Yes, they do call that the horizon What's your point? Okay, so you do believe there's a geometric horizon I believe there's a geometric curve if you want to call that an horizon they can't That that's the official definition of it from your paradigm called the geometric what's my paradigm? My paradigm was the video I showed Evidence I showed is my paradigm. What's my paradigm? You believe the earth's a globe. Am I am I arguing for science? Did I once argue for science? I think that was bit are right. So are you arguing for science? Are you arguing for the globe? Okay, go ahead I thought you were defending the globe model. I I'm defending that the earth is curved and it's not flat So you're not defending the official globe model. You have your own version of it Oh, I accept testimonial evidence from experts. So I'm okay with that too But what I have actually tested and experienced is that the earth is curved Yeah, I've been speaking muted. Sorry. Yeah, but I still want to go back to what he said about capitalist laws because I don't I don't necessarily disagree. Capitalist law have to do is cinematics. I specifically I even said is you know, taking gravitational law and a circular circular uniform movement We get to the third capital law, which is time squared period squared over radius to the third Should equal a constant, you know, and that's exactly matching and those numbers should only match if Graves works, you know, like four or five squared over gravitational constant times the The mass of the object and then you go when I would just say, oh, Kepler didn't know about gravity Kepler only knew about cinematics Look, bro. I don't know the history of physics. I know physics. I don't study History I know sometimes people Don't necessarily find out people that Things that have their names, for example, newton didn't know much about newtons fractals Like we do today because today we have actually computers to, you know, put the formulas on sylab and calculate the newtons methodology You know, uh, which is basically you take the derivative of the function in that certain point and project it And that leads us to newtons fractals So newtons didn't know about that, but because it comes from newtons methodology has His name, you know, I don't know what Kepler knew or what he didn't know because I'm not Sorry, for sure. Good for you. I know that's why we don't believe in it bro. So he studied. Yeah, I know I know that This law should only work if gravity is true Period squared over radius to the third Should only equal 4 pi squared over gravitational constant times the mass of the object being orbited should only work If gravity is true, why does gunny mead and and europa orbit jupiter? At this rate, why why does this work? Why do why when putting the numbers on this formula with the mass of jupiter come out Why is that? Well, that's how you got the mass of jupiter So you can't really invoke it as if some standard of accuracy to verify your prediction and sure Sure. Sure. I agree. I agree. Why why does why do why do the period of gunny mead and Europa then to the square Equal their distance to jupiter to the third. Why is that? Why does that work? Go ahead. Why is a dynamic question? Okay, the current model claims its gravity I'm correcting the idea that Kepler ending to do with that. He didn't Uh, we could just like kepler did. It's just the name of the lab, bro. It's third kepler I know i'm just trying to explain to you just like kepler did we can use acoustics You can literally say there's a vibrational resonance of the bodies that creates this ratio and relationship of the bodies to Cause them to move around each other seeking equilibrium due to pressure mediation of acoustics And that's what he said it was and he described it He was basically spiritual and said that uh, the sun was guide and that he was singing a song To the rest of the heavenly spheres and it caused the acoustics to make it orbit now The ratio is accurate for the local scale The question is what causes it and why do you think that somehow throws the earth in it doesn't make sense to me Where's the evidence? Why is the earth not thrown towards the sun? Is that why you're asking? Well, no, no, no, like what makes you think the earth is somehow the same thing as jupiter What what do you mean? Why do you think the earth is the same thing as jupiter you're saying like Oh No, no That's what's in contention. It's not a planet the earth is in the center And it's never been measured to be orbiting around the sun the current model says you can't do that Okay, this is impossible. So okay, so My point with that was try to prove that gravity exists. I was not using that to prove that The earth is not is not flat because I believe that one uh One of the steps toward proving towards proving the the fault is actually proving gravity exists If you if you're not denying gravity exists then Then great, then we can go to her So what is gravity? Yeah, you need to find it for me before I have to accept or deny that basically Basically what what I want you to to concede is that mass attracts mass It doesn't don't like even your own paradigm doesn't in but doesn't claim that No, yeah, yeah, of course we have we have you know more modern understanding where gravity is actually the bending of The four dimensions of of course I get I get all of that but in practice. Okay I'm talking about in practice and when you put mass There is a field that that attracts mass other mass In that field you don't you deny that Well, I I deny anything that pseudoscientific nonsense I don't want to take over this whole debate like I did last time I really want cranberry to talk. So I just want to let me explain this one more thing to you and I want to kind of fall back but Okay, I like science So that means I don't like people making up made up stories or ideas I want to do something scientifically and what I can do scientifically is I can use electrostatics To make things levitate to change their weight to change how fast they go up or down I can make orbit orbit levitation You can change their weights by introducing electrostatics Why why not lead and why does it affect different material In different ways gravity affects all material In the same way we can predict how heavy something is based upon 9.8 meters per second squared, right? That's another talking point. That's well. No, it doesn't matter like we need an interruption because you know about the dark No, it doesn't matter if gravity exists or not. Are you denying there's a 9.8 meter per second squared downward acceleration at all. I was in the process of rebutting it You got nervous, but actually gravity isn't constant So when you guys claim that it's a constant, it's provably not a constant We use that value as an average That's close enough It's provably not a constant In fact, it changes at the same location during thunderstorms or lightning storms or rainfall So we know it's not a constant different elements fall a different. Yeah, I have many papers Okay, in what scientific journal was that published on i'm interested Cambridge university published that paper for cambers university Yes, grab the changes according to During thunderstorms in a gravimeter, which is a vacuum chamber that's sealed inside of a building when thunderstorms approach Or lightning storms approach the little bb inside of the interferometric Gravimeter changes the rate of falls. In fact, other elements change how far they fall with the drop tower in the uk What's the conclusion of that paper? The conclusion is that they couldn't explain it with just mass alone. That's all they said They said that we don't know but we definitely checked all the boxes Gravity rate changes but the point is it changes just a little bit. I can explain why No, you can't I can explain what they claim. Why they claim why it happens. No, you're gonna say the mass of the clouds The mass of the war rainwater. That's what the claim is causing. This was not this was void of rain Wait, well then I have to see that paper Exactly. So you I told you couldn't know. Okay. So that so the atmosphere's average of 400 000 volts, right? I think it's something like 400 000 volts from the top of the atmosphere to the I don't want to take over all of it. But but that but that changes too That changes too and it can invert So when the when the electric when the electrostatics invert when you get lightning strikes if go the other way Why don't things levitate and why can't you levitate lead? Why can't you levitate lead? What's the thing right? You guys don't understand it yet. Why can't you levitate lead? It's like almost embarrassing I've explained it so many times. Yeah, why can't we bend spacetime and levitate lead? We don't have the tools to do so Oh, but it's okay when you can't do it I can I can levitate lead. You want to bet money on it? But we know lead falls will use an electrostatics. You're claiming you want to bet money I can levitate lead using electrostatic. I'd love to see that I don't do five money No, I don't gamble But you you can levitate any objects with a coffee Hutchison effect You can levitate any object with electrostatic I'd love to see that because you have to magnetize the object to get it to levitate No, you don't No, yes, you have to you have to have an electric charge That's an opposite priority to the field to get it to levitate magnetize and then you start talking about polarity of Yes, yeah, so it collects negative electrons on the top Positive like or not positive electrons. I'm a stupid But a negative charge on the top that causes it to float in an electric field right Uh, it's if you flip the polarity of the field the electrostatic induction or transference of the medium in the object will cause it to levitate. Yeah lead Yes You know, what's crazy is you guys just don't understand it.  It's because electrostatics although 10 to the 36 power stronger than gravies even claim to be Is very weak overall In fact to levitate an object you have to introduce a good amount of charge Like I when I do it with my bandagraph generator iron filing styrofoam hair paint chips all kind any object I can think of that small enough I had like 200 000 volts within these uh two Gaussian surfaces and I can make things levitate So in order to make something heavier levitate you would have to introduce a ton of electrostatics But that's how physics works once you establish the principle of physics on a small scale It's assumed due to physics and laws of physics that can be scaled up Yeah, I have a I have a problem with that because my computer for example, he was I was getting Shocks when touching it. Uh, I still have have them when I touched them. It was kind of carpet. Maybe. Yeah But when I when I put my flip-flops on them, it stops The thing is that that actually is a demonstration that my flip-flops isolate me from from The ground so if I touch the ground without being isolated Then the electrons from me and from the ground would equal themselves And eventually I would stop being pulled down and I would start levitating See that's what I'm saying. I'm trying to explain it now. I really want to fall back So just give me a second to explain something I want Camry to talk and you guys talk to her because she's going to duck on you too But this is the point I'm trying to make to you. Okay electrostatics is significantly stronger than Graves claim to be But it's overall weak every object that exists all matter that exists is electrostatic all matter that exists is intrinsically electrostatic This is a fact. Why are you shaking your head? No, okay? Can we name one piece of matter? That's not electrostatic So you're dying the electromagnetic force you're dying strong and weak nuclear force and you're denying gravity Everything's electrostatic now. You're saying I'm denying I'm asking why I'm saying so then I should have ignored you No, because I reject it because I reject your claim. So we don't all believe that Name one object in the world. That's not electrostatic Does it have electrostatics involved in it? Correct Well, everything has electrostatics involved but everything's not made of electrostatics That's just not true. All molecular and intermolecular attractive forces are electrostatic in nature per due universe Electromagnetics, first of all, not electrostatics. Electromagnetics No electrostatics Strong and weak nuclear force and gravity four fundamental forces It's four fundamental forces electrostatics fall under the blanket umbrella for electromagnetic All molecular and intermolecular attractive forces are electrostatic in nature It's in the 36 power stronger than gravity is going to be on the smallest scale per due university It doesn't matter if you deny it. You can measure it. You can test it. It's a fact My point is that it's very weak overall. Okay, so the real thing is objects this this case right here falls down It's more dense in the air. Okay, whenever things are less dense in the air goes up Now the question is what's the cause of density? Well density is defined as volume over mass the compactness of matter So the question is what causes what causes compactness of matter? Well, whatever allows it to have a certain compactness is what's holding it together That's electrostatics. So that causes electrostatic You have a density relationship with the object in the medium That's an electrostatic interaction giving you the buoyant force, which is pressure mediation Which is way stronger than the downward electric bias So in order to make things float you'd have to introduce a ton of electrostatic charge That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So I have real science I can prove it with an experiment and you admitted. Oh, we don't have the technology to prove ours But somehow ours is wrong and I don't deny I don't deny it. I don't deny electrostatics I don't deny you can cause things to levitate With electrostatics. I don't deny that what I do deny Is what causes mass So what causes things to bind together and you're also wrong electrostatics is a strong force as short distances Right very short distances. It's a strong force. Where gravity is a strong force Over long distances. So there is a difference between the two, but I said overall it's weak electrostatics in short distances is a strong force I can move my hand and deny it like look I said overall it's weak So you're what you're doing now is strengthening my argument. That's all you're doing Up to 10 to the negative 32nd 36th power do you agree do you agree that everything's electrostatic said yes Do you agree that electrostatics is 10 36 power stronger? You said yes, I don't agree I don't agree. Everything's electrostatics Name one thing that's not electrostatic Everything has electrostatics involved in its makeup. Everything is not electrostatics.   Oh my god. Did you just went all the way in the deep in the pseudoscience? Can you name one? I don't care. That's not electrostatic name one care It doesn't matter. None of it can be proven.  Pseudo scientific times everything has electros everything's has electromagnetic Force right electrostatics is an electromagnetic force And it also has a strong and weak nuclear force. We've created friggin nuclear bombs and blown them up And uh gravity when you deny that You deny we don't need to get into that. We don't need to get into that. I've worked at nuclear power plants I mean you can die. That's what's up. It doesn't mean that you understand it because They claim that neutrons electrons and protons are different modalities of the same thing with the electro weak force So like cool. So you're just making my argument stronger and stronger and stronger What we want to know is you claim if gravity is real your earth can't be flat Okay, can you verify your interpretation of gravity because we can scientifically verify ours and you admitted We don't have the technology to do it.  We need to change it. It doesn't work on the quantum or cosmological scale So you guys should catch up They have no evidence for your belief of gravity and actually everything's intrinsically electrostatic and it's very weak I'm sorry about it. Like I hate to break it to you, but that's just science and physics You're muted bigger Yeah, sorry I want to I want to understand your position. Do you or do you not deny that mass attracts mass? I I deny the idea that mass And uh attracts mass just like newton did he said the idea that mass is innately attracting other mass For other matter is such an absurdity that no man with competent faculty of thinking would ever fall into it Now if I take like an electrostatic charge balloon I rub it on my head and I stick it to the balloon while that balloon has mass the wall has mass So you could say the mass attracts the mass Okay, okay It's a yes or no question. Okay. I have one object with mass I deny I deny it. Yes So they're not being attracted. There's not they're being attracted Is there is there a vector in this direction and a vector in this direction that are the same A value in different Directions and in the same no in the same direction. Let's just stop the different value Do this so in the same same she look it back to it. Let me google translate that But the the value the value changes But yes, they attract but I deny that it's mass itself I just want to read this real fast the first three forces are also collectively called van der waals forces All molecular and intermolecular attractive forces are electrostatic in nature Okay, so you don't you don't you don't deny that there is a vector between those two objects one in this Reaction one in this sense one in this sense if there's enough electrostatic induction between Those two objects in the medium. It's not the matter itself. That's intrinsically attracting. It's the electrostatic relationship in the medium involved Okay, so so if I if I if I touch them Then they'll have the same charge Right because they're not isolated by air anymore. We'll begin to equalize. Yeah. Yeah, and then now they wouldn't have the Vector anymore as soon as you pull them away. They start to have electrostatic induction with the medium again Oh, so you say because because with friction with the air Then the yeah, if you want to call that. Yeah, like and that's provable, right? Like that's provable that like that's why we ground objects because as soon as we pull the ground off it starts charging up again That's why we have to keep it grounded If if what you're saying was true if I were to step up on uh What is the name in English of that thing that tells you your weight? scale scale Yeah, scale. Yeah, if I were to step up on a scale over time, I would wait to decrease So right now I should I I might wait 90 kilograms and I can Of little time I should be waiting less than that if what you're seeing is true and that doesn't happen You would have to introduce a ton of electrostaxi which has significantly changed weight that big No, no, I've explained that those objects are isolated Now they're not isolated anymore Because they're not isolated anymore. There is not a vector between them anymore There's not there according to what you said according to your theory. They're not being pulled Uh in each other's direction anymore if I if I step on a scale according to what you're saying Like initially it will say 90 kilograms and after like a few seconds it will say zero Yeah, I'm not no, no, I'm not I'm not saying that electrostax again. I really want to fall back I'm not saying electrostax is pulling everyone down to the earth That's an idea you guys have we we were all conditioned with to think there's some force pulling things down to the earth That's not what we're saying. There's a downward electric current. That's 10 micro micro amps per meter. It's very small Measurable there's always electrostatics and that's what gives you your density and your weight and your mass Like you couldn't exist and have density or mass or weight without You don't seem to understand what this is I do understand you're saying that if I if I touch the scale then I'm gonna discharge and equalize so my weight should change No, that's not correct. I'm why all right. All right. Look. Look. I want what I want to do is like Let's go like I'll talk to you guys about it later I don't want to take over the whole debate because everyone's like they're not talking about flatter Well, I just want to Yeah, over to you as I am sorry. I wanted to kick it over you You have a delay in your voice. Anyways, but I just want to say the direction the current flow changes So too you're saying is it downward current flow, but that that direction can't change Look, dude. Look, here's the deal It's a fact that what I'm talking about can be scientifically proven if you want to deny it That's fine But I would love for us to get back to the point Which is that the earth is not a globe provably the horizon isn't physical what you claim is there isn't there I don't want to take over the whole debate. So like If you want to claim I'm you could never like I've already explained it. You didn't get it It's okay. Can we go back to where like where's the physical curve of the earth? You claim it's a ball We went and tested it. It's not there the horizon's just a parent You have no evidence for the claim that there's a physical geometric horizon anywhere Can we talk about that and maybe maybe maybe it would be good for you guys to address what I said Sorry, it was like to address what I said about uh The moon But yeah, go ahead those lines. I just seen you haven't tested down the lab You just proved a little bit Electricity's can cause things to levitate. You haven't proved what causes things to fall in the lab You haven't done that. Did you prove it with spacetime in the lab? Um, no, we proved we have a Cavendish experiment. We we understand how we understand how mass attracts math You can deny it if you want Let me let me just answer that real quick.  I want to get Karen in here because uh, you guys have been talking for a little bit and Karen you must have some thoughts about all the things the fellows are saying here So I want to kick it over to you to just kind of expound what you're hearing here and uh, how you're feeling about this conversation I think um, most of what they're talking about is of no consequence to the shape of the earth personally, but um What one thing that did come up earlier that I think uh, is is really an important question is for ozian and his drone video Like if you believe that that shows you curvature that that low amount of uh of height right there 150 feet why isn't curvature visible? Like everywhere all the time measurable Why can we go to like places like the bolivian salt flats and it be flat for for you know Miles and miles and miles in any direction with no curvature detected anywhere at all at all whatsoever How come there are abyssal planes at the bottom of the ocean that are flat? For hundreds and hundreds of miles. I mean There are just innumerable things that happen that that just aren't they don't Jive with a ball the size and shape that we are given So how do you explain your magical? Where's the curvature everywhere else? How can it can't be measured? I have a document 120 page document where we out and we look we wanted to find curvature We were trying to prove that the earth was a globe because it is not fun to sit here You see the chat to get ridiculed and and you know criticized all the time for Denying this this globe earth that we've been fed to our entire lives and we go and we we can't find curvature anywhere It cannot be measured, but you think you can see it 150 feet with your drone. Can you explain the discrepancy in that? Um first of all chat is mean. Um, they should be nice to you. I I appreciate your opinion But let's go to the topic So all I did was measured that more of the ship was exposed So that what is explained by the size of your nothing to do is why you say in your witness curvature You said then you're contradicting yourself because you said that you played that video and you're like I witness curvature because the boat got bigger But now you're saying it's because of perspective because the drone went up and you saw a bigger angle of view, right? That's why the boat is bigger So the curvature or not I'm not seeing that's why the boat got bigger and seen there's water that was walking earlier when you played your video You said you experienced and see curvature with your video But that's not true. Is it that is true? No, it isn't because there is no curvature to be seen that you can't measure it You're seeing I didn't you're telling me what I experienced and you're telling me i'm lying I believe that you believe that you experienced curvature, but you didn't measure it You took your drone and you went up and down and you're assuming That the angle of view got bigger because of curvature But actually it's become bigger because the drone went higher up in the air I'm talking about where I took a team of people and we went and traveled to different locations across the earth plane And we physically measured stuff with cameras and lasers and all kinds of equipment And we cannot measure curvature We were able to consistently see and measure things beyond the distance that you should Be able to see on a globe the shape the shape and size that they say it is End of story Yeah You guys want to talk about what I said about the moon that proves there anything but what care be just talked about No, I'd have to see your evidence I'd be interested in seeing all that evidence to see how you did the testing and how you took the measurements I'm not denying that you went out and did that not at all I'm not denying that you have a testimonial that you believe is true Just because I don't accept your testimonial as true facts I mean nobody's going to a liar But we just refuted Hey Karen, why why don't you try to publish where you had to make a paper it is published, but no But I can't post a link in here. I can post it in here. I just a tactic It's just a tactic. No, wait, wait. She just dumped on you man. Can you address it? No, I can it. Well, then let me address it. You're talking Address that she just dumped on your alleged globe evidence. Please address it. So I I had two hypotheses I had two hypotheses that either the earth was curved or the earth was flat Yeah, your hypothesis was wrong Okay, so there may be some other factors involved in the Anything I may be straw manning some claim that you had So I said two hypotheses based on basic geometry what I would expect to see As my drone rose in altitude. I did not see what I would expect to see if the earth was flat I saw what I what I How could it be a straw man when it's what I would expect to see when the earth was flat How's that? Okay, okay fair enough. You don't understand flat earth And your arguments are relevant and if you're claiming to have accurately represented flat earth when testing it It was a straw man Is that better set up two hypotheses They're wrong And and one supported hypotheses two and the other one was evidence against hypotheses one Well, your hypotheses one wrong Well, well, then then and then you try to see it was just my eyes playing tricks on me Well, it wasn't my eyes would be my Anything about tricks It's weird. How do you know let me let me break this down really simply the ground appears to ramp up you to Perspective. Okay. So as you looked at that Need a passage as the ground as the ground ramped up you to perspective it ramped up towards that boat as you Lift see so now he's back to square one which he's denying Because my drone makes things my drone didn't go My drone didn't go further away. My drone didn't go closer to the ship My drone went straight up. So it wasn't ground Ramping up. It was the drone going straight up Exposing more of this ship. So you're actually saying All right, wait, are you actually seeing? That the that the water is actually going up No, oh my hearing because of perspective. Oh, that's you don't do you know Doesn't get it. He literally doesn't get it. So it's not actually above me even though my my eyes the horizon rises To my eyes. It's an optical illusion. So the horizon's not really at my eyes Like even on a flat earth their horizon would have to be At my feet level or whatever other structures Around there on the horizon, whatever it would be horizon is apparent the ground is always below your feet Yes, so the horizon would have to be below my feet The right it's not a physical place. Exactly. I covered that in Whatever the no, I don't care about the optical illusion. Whatever that place is The the ground you're seeing at the distance If that was a body of water that as far out as you can see on the surface That would have to be at your feet I have to share my presentation. Would it have to be at your feet? Can you answer the question? It optically rises. We covered it in my I'm sharing my presentation But it's actually at your feet, right? I understand this like this is Can you address this? So when my my drone goes straight up It's not coming further away. It's not going towards it It's not the railroad tracks going further off in the distance. It's my drone seeing more of the ship being exposed Because the water is not blocking the ship Okay, now we're going to talk to the audience and everyone's going to hear this. Okay Sharing the screen here Cover this in my we're having a debate not we're not debating the audience But we're going to hear this and then watch you record it debates are for the audience anyway Exactly the sky's ramping down to eye level The ground is ramping up Towards eye level if I then raise up in a drone It's going to change What the level of that optical ramping effect is because of Perspective if you deny this you deny basic reality, bro And I'm not even trying to be ugly. Look right here. We'll just cover this right here. Here's the horizon. Look, I'm raising up It looks like the horizon is raising above the initial point Now if the earth were actually curving it should be going down away from me as I get higher should be getting further down What do we see in reality? It's rising up which means the globe has to claim that this happens due to perspective They have to claim that the air density, but whatever it doesn't matter. Oh, wait, wait You think this happens because of refraction? It could be I'm not an expert at all It doesn't matter to my drone footage each because my the ship does It literally the ship was not at the horizon The ship was not at the horizon not even doesn't matter to the horizon buddy The horizon's doing the same thing as anything else is due to perspective That's what I'm saying So I can still see the waves when you went up and down with that drone footage You clearly don't understand perspective bro, and that that's the problem here Okay, the ship got taller as the drone went up. You can see it clear as day Well, hey, can you address this video? Keep seeing your video. Why does the horizon appear to rise in this video? Well, the horizon's at the same spot. So it may be your camera angles changing. I don't know Okay, if you got a good drone, it's probably not so you have to deny reality As I'm saying like I just showed at the beginning.  It's weird honestly because if you think there's a globe that's cool Don't deny like basic perspective to do that. It doesn't make sense I falsified our model for gravity, you know, uh, if we You're according to your model. We shouldn't wait when stepping on the Scale, is that the name? You gotta stick to the curve of the earth, brother. That's the whole crux of the issue Yeah, you don't you don't want to talk about me falsifying your things, right? You want to go back to another point? No, I would dunk all over you with gravity I don't want to be disrespectful to the people that are debating flat earth and just Part of teach you guys basic Sure. Sure. Why don't you why don't you talk about how I debunked your flat with the moon then? Why don't you talk about that? How does that explain that? Explain it's obviously he can't explain the actual facts of perspective and how his entire things easily explain Understanding the water ramps up optically will move on Explain how the moon proves the earth's the ball. Go ahead I think first you would need to tell them what the moon is I remember your explanation You didn't say something about something meaning 2d like there's no such thing as 2d objects in reality Just a weird thing to even say out loud. Yeah, I'm saying if the moon is flat, of course I don't mean its thickness is zero. I mean, it's not that's what you think Yes, I know And yeah, so you're saying that the moon should we should see the rest of the moon if the earth is flat No, I'm saying that people from different perspectives shouldn't should see different faces of the moon Or if the moon was a disc We should see different faces Different shapes. Sorry. Why something is why? Why? Yeah Again, if somebody that is here and somebody that is here The moon is an object over here the person that is on the right side of the paper and the person that is on The left side of the paper they're gonna see different Faces of this object Like the person who's here Let's say let's say Let's say that the earth flatter if it's right here. Okay Somebody that is over here is probably seeing the Oh, this is how inverted is viewing the Uh green side the yellow side, let's say But there's here and somebody that is here is being like this This side in it So if there's a flat plane here They would see different sides of a three-dimensional object And if it was a disc as you move a disc, you know, take any disc Put it in front of you as you move a disc its shape changes from a from perspective so The moon you can say that the moon it is this You can like nothing you can say if if the if the earth was flat We should either see the shape of the moon changing or a different Perspective like different faces of the moon. We see the same face, but it just turns around, you know So I am in the south pole. I've in the south hemisphere. I see the moon twisted some degrees compared to you guys that are in the north Which happens on a flat surface So now so we'll get back over to you're claiming that we should see the other sides of the moon based on where we are So you're straw manning the flat earth with a very Like short distance with solidity in ignoring optical effects of the medium You're also ignoring anything that the moon actually could be we can show electromagnetic polarization showing holographic images Showing it the appearance of spherical nature. This is a fact. All this is a fact. I'll scientific Who cares about silence? So you're assuming solidity and distance So you're straw manning the solidity on a flat earth and straw manning the specific distance Are you saying that it would happen at any distance? And what's the medium Yeah, like unless the moon was really far away, you know, really far How far are you are you saying that it's as far as it starts just in relation to its size So, how do you know how big it is? So wait, wait, you just you just admitted that at a certain distance We wouldn't see the other side. Yeah, but okay, if the moon was that far Then like how fast do you think the moon travels, bro? Wait, what if it was smaller if it was smaller like faster than light? Is that what you think? You see how easy it is to debunk the target if it was smaller then how far it would have to be would get closer, right? What do you mean? You think the moon is a certain size and 238,000 miles away and rotating 10 miles per hour. Are you saying the moon is closer or further away? The moon is closer and smaller than your model claims. It appears I don't have to make specific things about it. But it It refutes your claim, which is what professor Dave said like four years ago. You got to do better than professor Dave Who's not gonna work? That's where you got this argument professor Dave And let's be real, bro Like you just admitted if the moon was a certain distance away, then we wouldn't know if it was really far away Like the stars for example, and they are So far away that you don't see different faces of a star Okay, but we don't know there's a there's a sweet zone Or optically you wouldn't see it based on the amount of the land of the earth that can actually see the moon But this I want the audience to make sure they understand So your whole argument is what debunks the flat earth because we can't show physical measurement of curvature We never see the actual curvature of the earth Karen says they go out and test it specifically with physical tests and measurements and that their earth is not curving I point out the horizon is actually optical We show that oh oh zion or whatever. He's actually just completely misunderstanding perspective All right, so we ignore all that you don't have any physical direct measurements Let's talk about the moon and the fact that the moon we see the same side of it So what's the globe models claim for why we say this you see the same side of the moon They claim the moon they claim the moon is a sphere 238,000 miles away And that it's orbiting the earth 2200 miles per hour And at the same time, it's rotating on an axis 10 miles per hour and that it takes exactly the same amount of time for the moon to Rotate once as it does to orbit the whole earth So it just looks as if it's sitting still and we only see one side of it That's your model's claim just coincidentally it takes the exact same amount of time to rotate as it does to orbit the earth That's your claim You have no evidence for that and it coincidentally at the same time coincidentally at the same time the moon is 400 times smaller than the sun But just magically by cosmic coincidence exactly 400 times closer than the sun So they look like they're the same side. What's the flyer's position? We see a light for the day a light for the night. They seem to be the same side We don't make physical claims about it. It looks like it's in a fluid like medium And we know that with a certain size and a certain distance in a certain medium You would just see the obstacle effect that is the light in the sky called the moon Period. So so we address what can be proven you make up fairy tales. So that doesn't prove the earth What do you think causes Eclipses I'm curious Polarization Polarization Yeah, you can take two polar lenses and move it around. Do we have to cover basic logic here?  Heron and I just told you we went and out and tested it All over the world, but isn't curving It isn't talking You keep answering You say we can't ask you questions about your model, but you get to ask me questions about claims that I don't make You don't claim the earth's a ball. You don't claim the earth's a ball um Not what I said Not what I said We can't you're claiming we can't ask you how to explain the moon The the earth all these other things But it's okay for you to ask us questions about claims That we're not making if I see the earth is a glow I could think there's some I could believe there's some magical force Holding the planet together in the shape of the ball unless you can point to some logical contradiction You can't see there's something internally inconsistent about the claims So you're trying to make that claim I guess about the flat earth, which I don't think you've done So we do like I do I believe the scientific claim about the earth being a globe Now you brought me up with perspective again So yes perspective. I do understand perspective The point I was trying to make was it depends on the height Of my eyes.  So like a little bit like a little like um, I don't know I think we've seen that and that's not the case Can we ask point blank questions? Where is the curve? Do we ever see the actual curve of the earth? Yes or no? Yes Now he says it is curvature Wait, wait, so the horizon is the physical curve of the earth There's literally a life feed from the international space station Wait, no, there's what what what dude according to the geometry of the globe You couldn't see the curvature there from the ISS and they use a fisheye lens and they cut it out constantly non sequitur We're not appealing to the authority of the government. Wait, I want to know is the horizon Brody brother brother is the horizon The curve of the earth Is the horizon the curve of the earth? What do you mean? Yeah, man? Is the horizon the curve of the we can you can see past the horizon because the earth curve is yes, that's accurate So is the horizon the curve of the earth that we're seeing yeah, you can like the What we call horizon is like the division between of course land and air it's the line You can't see past that line because the earth is curved. That's why from If you take a camera from, you know, brazil and point it to africa, you know from salvador and point it to london You won't be able to see london from salvador because the earth is curved. Okay, but no one's at you Is the horizon that we see The physical curve of the earth. Yes, sir. I just I just answered you bro. Are you saying yes? Yes Okay, well, it's not though because it constantly changes. So how could it be the curve of the earth? Is the earth breathing in and out? It's it's not hard to understand come on the the horizon. It's it's not I agree It's not hard to understand The earth's not breathing in and out the horizon is not the curve of the earth. Look. Hey, is the earth Look right here. You see my screen. Is the earth is the earth changing sizes right now I don't see the horizon What I don't really see an horizon there. You don't see a horizon I see a mountain range is being distorted by atmospheric conditions. I see something in the distance. Yeah Hey, wait, you guys don't see a horizon here I see it looks looks like a mountain range or something the distance is being Um, included by atmospheric conditions, but we can't see the curve of the earth here Um, I don't see a physical curve of the earth actually sort of looks concave sometimes So we don't see the curve. So the horizon isn't the curve of the earth Is is this a curve of the earth right here? Is this horizon the curve of the earth? It is curved I would see that whole body of water is curved. I measured it the curve of the earth Absolutely, it is Okay, so now you claim that where we see the horizon is the curve of the earth So whenever we see the black swan right here Wait, so wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, let's just don't watch it So wait, is this horizon the curve of the earth? The whole surface of the earth is the curve of the earth Hey, is this horizon the curve of the earth? Yes or no? Yeah, it's it's in the surface all of the surface is curved I don't know is the horizon The curvature of the earth the leading edge of the whole surface the whole surface of your guys Don't understand the globe model. I don't understand the globe model. There is a point on the globe Here we go the alleged curve. This is the globe model You see it's supposedly going over the horizon and that's supposedly the curve of the earth right here Yeah, supposedly going over the curve. Okay So you guys think Is the horizon the curve of the earth The whole surface of the earth is curved your question doesn't make sense Where I am right now I'm standing on a curve of the earth. Yeah, we're all standing on the curve of the earth Do we ever see the actual curve of the earth? Yes or no? Yeah Yes, open the light wait with your drone footage. You saw the actual physical tangible location of earth curve I I demonstrated the water was curving. Yes You're not too scared. Are you asking for a horizon curve? I did it because I'm not responding to a rising curve I showed the lake was curving away From the camera to the ship You're asking about horizon curve Well, are you asking am I seeing horizon curve because I never claimed to see horizon curve I claim to see Because I said specifically that I stand on the curve the and big theater pointed out too Every part of the earth is part of the curve So we did respond so that horizons curved, but you can't really see it Through the perspective, but the whole surface is curved. I measured curve from my drone On the surface of the lake We did Ozzy and Ozzy and you know why I say that we dunk on you Because take debunk and take a couple letters out the middle and you get dunked on and we already did that We already know I'm just I'm balling it so no no you're getting MJ dude tongue out like it's bad Like this is what we're talking about is the horizon we were all told boats disappear behind the curve of the earth Yeah Turns out we went out and tested the earth That does not happen Because the boat looks like it disappears at three miles and then when I go back the next day I can see it from 10 miles away So that horizon is not the curve of the earth Is part of the curve? No, it's not It's just the apparent the official globe model now states because they changed their claims once flat earth came along That we never see the actual curve of the earth We only see the apparent horizon and I promise there's a real actual curve in there somewhere You can just never see it. So are you denying your model or do you agree with that? I'm not denying my model. You're asking me if I can Physically detect the curve of the earth Visually just standing there looking at it. No, I can't detect it, but I can see it Because it's all curved, but that's big in the question. I understand as big as the question So so I went out there and I measured it with a drone and I saw it with the drone So yes, so you can't see the curve of the earth. Where are your measurements? I was in the video footage. I put the number but there's no measurement there because I gave you the calculation. You don't have a calculation. You have measured pixels on a screen That's not measuring the curvature of the earth when we measure the curvature of the earth No, shut up and listen for a second when we measure the curvature of the earth We have specific Locations where we document where people are standing how tall how high above the water surface They are standing exactly how far across the water we are making visual contact of said objects And everything is documented to the t you have nothing you have a drone that goes up and down You don't even know how far out that ship is from the sea You don't even have a little diagram that says I was standing here. This is where I was This is my elevation the ship was way over here x amount of distance away from me That's a measurement a measurement has numbers, dude Like distance didn't have numbers okay pixels But when you're talking about distances and curvature you need to have more than pixels of a boat in your picture, dude Exactly because no when the when the camera goes up and down it changes your angle of view And it makes you able to see more of the ship because your drone is going up and down Which makes the distance this way Irrelevant dude like it's not even anywhere near a fucking measurement. Excuse my language But not even close not even close First of all, I can pick whatever unit of measurement I want if I want to choose to use pixels I can use pixels I can do the calculations Using trigonometry You're measuring the pixels of a ship in a video, which does not have anything to do with earth curvature Which demonstrates the measurement of curvature No, it doesn't it doesn't demonstrate anything. I do understand it demonstrates how You understand anything about what you're trying to talk about Let me say one more thing I can say you need a measurement to be finger-wiss if I want to it could be whatever All right, cool. Yeah. Yeah, you can do what you want to yeah Let me say one more thing and then I want I care. I'm just gonna keep dunking on you It's almost embarrassing but like I just want to point this out So the audience understands what we're talking about So they claim the ursa ball that's curving Which means when you look out in the distance you can only see so far Because the earth is curving away from you so it's going to block things in the distance Like if you're a little ant on a basketball and you look out curves going to block things in the distance That that blockage that hump that curve would create a horizon You understand that so the horizon that you see would be the curve of the earth It would be a physical geometric horizon Like you can't see around a curve of a corner in your house. Okay Basic stuff here geometry would be a geometric horizon a tangible physical location that obstructs things in the distance Now we went out and saw wait a minute at horizons not where it's supposed to be. We're seeing hundreds of miles too far So now you guys change your position. So what we're asking is Where is the actual? physical location of this alleged curvature Where is the actual? Curvature that's the question Well, first of all, no one's changing the position You're just arguing with people that don't fully understand The claim like I don't fully understand the claim So if you're arguing with people that want to explain their rises three miles away And but you're not talking to the expert in the field of like optics or refraction And stuff like that and understand the actual atmospheric conditions All that stuff can be calculated and explained on a globe model and you know that because you presented That information before can you provide evidence of the actual Curvature of the earth. Why are you telling me what you can explain with calculations even though you don't understand it But you can appeal to the authority of some random other guy You have actual physical measurement of the curvature of the earth or not just admit you don't have it You have to assume it's there and you can never see the actual curve of the earth. You just have to have a question I didn't beg the question. I showed the calculation. I showed my measurement. I showed my calculation Try to we can we help me out We try to explain to him that the difference in the apparent and geometric rock Maybe you can break it down to him like I'm strong at fallacy because I never claimed to see a rising curve I claim to see the the water curve for me to the chip No, no, I did not I never said the magic word. I never claimed we've done it everybody Just We That's fine because I do think this would be a good time to go into the q&a So if anybody does need to grab a drink I think whatever we were going down there We will circle back to because there's enough questions in here. We will be busy for a little bit So I want to thank again once again batar for being here last minute Everybody if you need to take a bathroom break or get a drink feel free I just want to remind everybody. Yes, we are going to go into q&a which needs to use the washroom So if you need to go let's say one Um Yeah, uh Just want to remind everybody, you know, you're hanging out in the the old live chat or you're just watching Uh, you know hit that like button. That's always a lot of fun And you know This just came in the day and I think we can all agree that this is flat and it's awesome I've I've officially become I've officially almost become a 30 year old man And I had to get a record player and I got this Lovely flat disc that I can't put on because it would absolutely get us a copyright strike, but it is my Good old favorite green screen green screens my green screens messing it up You can see just a little bit if I move it around fast enough. It's judas priest's unleashed in the east um So I've actually been messaging sony music because i'm trying to get the rights to delivering the goods to use as the intro songs but uh I hope everybody's just enjoying listening to the Jams that we've uh that I put up that me and my buddy wrote there but Yeah, you're asking in there Sure thing. I mean you're here. So I mean as long as you're not talking about the other fellows you can go ahead So on uh, we had the modern day debate discord server I don't know if you had the link in the description, but Every saturday I'm going to try to run an open stage where people are free to come up and we can Have topics submitted and stuff like that. So I plan on doing that five p.m. Eastern standard time every saturday Maybe we can do stuff about flatter We did one about um, who should win the republican nomination today. No one was there anyways We we had a good conversation anyways just to plug the discord Yeah, awesome. Yeah, I'm hanging out in there too and uh having a lot of fun and that's uh, that's how we found a guitar tonight to get uh To get him in here for our conversation and we super appreciate him being here last minute and I think it's been going Uh, very well Uh, everybody's having a little mini debate on uh tapes and vinyl now because I was showing off my unleashed in the east record Um, so that was when judas priest traveled to japan and I think that was what 19 What does this say? I'm an old music fella Are we are you alive? But let's see 1979 we sure are we're just waiting for everybody to get back and then we're going to Uh, get right into our q&a, you know, I think Me being here last time like you're welcome.  I'm agnostic a fifth Yeah, you're welcome bro. It's uh, it's an honor for me to be here I feel I feel like I'm ill prepared though not only because I didn't have time to to study, you know Remember things from physics from high school. But as I said, I only I study software engineering at brasilia's university and like I I only have physics one, you know, which is mechanics in my course. I don't have like electromagnetism, which the kids and uh Airspace engineering, which isn't the same compass as I Have, you know, maybe one of those guys would be better suited, but I hope I'm doing a good job Yeah, we super appreciate you being here. What's it is back? So let's wait for Karen to get here and then we'll start our q&a Can I ask can I ask? Oh, there she is I was just wondering like like you guys really believe this Yes It's weird, bro. Like why like what like do you have any evidence that the ursa ball that flies around the sun? I see the sun and I see the earth and I see spaceships and I I use gps For um testing and not just for like getting around and navigating But to do but to do testing I use gps So I have to gps uses a preferred direction, which is anti relativistic Oh, you know, it's not anti relativistic. So you're complaining about the one ways The one way speed of light, which we don't we can never measure two way. Yes Not what I know not what I said So we had an error in the gps calculations and we had to correct for that Just go to the queue. No, no, there's a preferred direction from the eci and the ecif the eci is the inertial frame And then the ecf is a non-inertial frame There's a preferred direction based on the propagation of light with the sag neck effect Which debunked relativity which says that light is constant in all reference frames Well, we can just go to q&a. I don't think you're ready for that Different topic. Well, I mean So if you do want to respond before we go into q&a He brought up gps. He doesn't understand gps. So you should be no, I understand the problems we have with gps But let's move on You don't All right, let's go into our q&a and keep those questions coming at everybody. We do appreciate them So, uh, yeah, and also hit the like button. Why not there's almost what 700 odd of you watching You know, what's wrong with you? Hit the like button. We love it Uh, the omega wordy two dollars right off the bat says Don't forge your friends. Join discussion groups. So, uh, yeah, if any of our, uh, modern-day debate discord People's are in our chat right now and want to tag the discord Sure, do join our discussion groups. We appreciate to see you there Um, and who knows that could be, you know, your one-way ticket to get on the show and exercise your debate skills Um, batara is here tonight because uh, he's in our discord and uh, I see him in there very often having conversation. So, uh He had the confidence to come out here and we super appreciate that Elijah Rivera five dollars a question for the flat earthers. What do they think hit the pentagon on 9 11? There's no evidence of plane hit I mean a missile Looks like a general. I saw a general say on video. He said it was a missile Yep I wasn't there If you're asking if we blindly believe what the government said about the fact that they had 80 something cameras That they didn't release and then there's no footage of the plane There's no plane debris and then it just so happened at the very area of the pentagon That had like the documentation of the missing trillions of dollars Yeah, I mean, I don't I don't blindly. I don't think either of us. I think we pick up Year we just started a uh a conspiracy theory channel. I will say let's Yeah, has to say let's uh, if you guys want to have like two minutes to talk about that and Expound any thoughts on the other side? Well, I don't know 9 11 definitely wasn't done by the Zionists. That's what I'll say Well, that's what Elijah believes but that's beside the point So, I mean who cares about the like physical documentation improved that they literally had massage there and Amped out across the street and documented and got arrested for it, but Why do you think Israel would want to blow up the pentagon like that? Why don't you go ask them? Okay, because like Israel, okay I don't know if you saw the that video from joe biden say oh if not for israel We would have to invade the middle east and create our puppet state because that's what israel is it's the us Is puppet state? It's the us imperialism on the middle is there everything they have is paid for by the us like Why would they want to blow up the pentagon? That doesn't make any sense I'll tell you I'll tell you because what it did was they blamed it on their enemies in the middle east So then america went and fought israel's enemies for them That's why pretty simple. Yeah, why didn't they blame it on Hamas? Then why why would they blame it? Why wouldn't they blame it on fatad then why would they blame it on like a dude in pakistan, you know like What you mean the people that wanted the gold standard and refused a centralized banking system and was specifically going against israel they The motivation for israel to do it is just obvious They they claimed that their enemies in the middle east attacked us and guess where america got the intel for weapons of mass destruction drum roll please Israel and guess what we found out there were no weapons of mass destruction But guess who the war benefited drum roll israel so it seems pretty dry But the the thing is israel doesn't need to convince the u.s. Sended money, you know, like it the u.s. Are at send his billions of dollars So i'm not sending troops in a war Yeah, they didn't send troops to palestine yet, you know the the people killing palestinians are israeli soldiers, uh I believe the evidence of the 9 11 israel. Yeah, we get it So the testimony 11 is that was presented in 9 11 commission. I have no reason to believe it's not true There you go, man Make sure you take your booster too because like clearly they were just so you know the dancing israelis The dancing israelis were arrested And then admitted they staked it out admitted.  No, no, no, no, no It's it's literally verifiable through the foyer request that the government came and provided the documentation of the dancing israelis They got arrested with hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash Refused to testify refused to answer questions Contradicted themselves felled polygraph tests and then struck a sweetheart deal with the israeli government and sent them back over They're free of charge dancing israelis Whatever man. Yes, let's bow to zionism. They love us. They would never do anything to hurt us All right, let's let's try not to get too sidetracked But I I think we might have found a source for discussion in the future. So Um, well, yeah, these fellows aren't shy. They'll tell you exactly what they think and I think that's awesome We do appreciate everybody being here. Kara no zion avatar and witsett for having this discussion Uh, let's continue on with our q&a because we got all kinds of it I just want to make sure I give you guys equal love because I know I was giving the tire a little extra just for Popping in last minute. So I want to make sure you guys know. I appreciate all of you. Um, JC 23 2 dollars no question attached there Elijah Riviera 10 dollars if they said it was a missile then this subject is propaganda from the cia So that missile would have to use the satellites which use a gps which uses satellite which needs a globe All right, so we're back to september 11. Let's continue. Oh dumb I go by the way gps doesn't actually prove anything to do with a globe If you don't know that it uses the xyz coordinate system that's transposed from Cartesian coordinate systems on small local data points And of course again again It actually debunks relativity and that the earth is spinning and revolving as it uses preferred direction of west to east according To einstein's relativity There is no preferred direction and light has a constant speed in all reference frames gps is actually the current globe models Worst enemy why you would have to do research to know that so but satellites I have talks to the satellites By the way, do you do you think it's a missile? Is that why you think it was a missile? We don't really know bro. We don't you don't know Okay, we don't we we don't have evidence. It was a plane Elijah might be somebody you can convince in the flat earth or you never know come to the discord he's in the conspiracy channel I don't really think we want to kind of like try to convince or convert people Like if you can't be honest about the evidence then like I would not for you bro I would guess missile. No, that's okay. Uh, we're gonna try to uh, uh get to another question here Hopefully this one will be a little bit more on topic but uh, I do look forward to the potential of having that discussion with you guys about the The talk around that date. I don't know exactly what gets us demonetized on youtube in america. I'm in canada, so questioning is questioning is real too specifically Oh, okay. Well, well, uh, yeah, I was gonna say I might have come But we love them. We love them and bow. We bow allegiance to the middle east By the way, james since you have politics debates. I've never seen a Debate on is this room and on fire tight, you know, maybe that's a debate you guys should have Unmodern in the big but yeah, just a suggestion. Yeah Oh, yeah, for sure. And I will remind you of my name in the zoom chat is james. So uh, james is here in spirit Uh, maybe I need his zoom account because I'm not willing to pay for one But uh, my name is ryan, uh, sorry and that's on the uh the screen. That's okay, buddy We we we appreciate you there congo 44 $20 question for witsett and karen How do we reconcile your beliefs and flat earth with all the modern technology you use every day that use physics You deny you're on the internet cognitive dissonance or justice honesty. Let's kick that over to you karen first We haven't heard from you in a little bit well that is just Wrong from the beginning because we don't deny any of any of the modern technology or anything that we use and none of it Proves or disproves flat earth. So that's sort of what is that you're arguing against something that we don't even really believe so straw man straw man It's just weird, bro Like actually all modern technology assumes the earth as a stationary plane Like when you say we're using the technology all you could possibly be talking about is like an accelerometer Inside of your phone or maybe a computer accelerometer is just using a greed upon average of downward acceleration And that's just the effect that you're claiming the cause of which is what we're actually challenging It's just a gas lighting tactic But once pointed out that not one piece of modern technology requires the assumption that the earth is a tilted wobbling spinning sphere They'll just keep saying it anyway It's it's a convenient way to try to make fun of flat earthers and say you're using the very technology that you deny the science of And it's objectively wrong provably wrong. They'll never say anything specifically So I find it to be pretty disingenuous and bad Yeah, it's pretty much just taking a shot. You're just taking a shot at us with that But you can't actually debate All right. Well thoughts on the other side. They're coming at you Oh, I just sort of uh agree, you know in part like um, it's like I'm a libertarian So people will say oh if you oppose taxes you shouldn't use public services Like I don't necessarily oppose taxes regardless. They just hear libertarians the These straw men me there too. But anyways beside the point so But I enjoy like the photographs we get from mars. I don't deny those exist So we do have technology to go That's modern technology equipment that went to mars to send photographs back that I can see and enjoy But they said that we deny the modern technology that we you said we deny the physics required I know modern technology that we so you agree. That's a really stupid dishonest thing that they say it's I think fundamental to a lot of the things that we do you do you rely at least on newtonian physics so engineering does rely upon newtonian physics which um, Like you did see it. Um, he's opposed. It's like a downward force of 9.8 meters per second squared and I do agree with that but most of the stuff we build doesn't rely upon Einsteinian physics where he doesn't rely upon the bending the spacetime except gps But and would you use that? It does but we have another discussion about that like No, that i'm done Yeah, it doesn't use newtonian mechanics either, but we can move on Yeah Sorry, we literally don't they don't We literally have multiple military people Who deal in long-range? ballistics Who say that they never have used choreolus and don't use choreolus all of the firing tables that they have They have listing firing tables. It tells you distance and you know and all this other everything, but How much the earth is turning? I mean it just doesn't Doesn't happen and the spin of the bullet out of the barrel sorry to the live chat Just one second there would sit. Uh, I'm sorry to live chat. They missed the question because I I'd hit my mute button They missed my terrible joke about hitting the scroll up button Everything's a mess. No, uh, the question everybody was another question for the flat earthers Why do so many snipers in the military measure mile out shots by using the choreolus effect and hit their shots? So that's what you just heard care and respond to and we'll kick it over to witsett Yeah, so they We talked to the person that broke the world record said we've never accounted for choreolus ever I personally know multiple people that snipe in the military. They never account for choreolus What the ballers will then say is oh, well, it's built into the machines. They use they said We don't even really use those machines But even if it is That the spin of the bullet out of the barrel is way stronger than anything choreolus allegedly would be And then when you account for wind it's way strong So the truth is they don't account for choreolus whenever they shoot long distance and that wins the primary correction used This is just a fact It's a fact. So like for in order to just keep saying it you have to kind of deny reality again the occurring team I I agree that it it's probably like a couple centimeters at most depending on the range of the Shot if choreolus has effect on if it actually hits a target But a couple centimeters isn't that big of a deal for a sniper Shooting the long range hand that wind would have a greater impact on the trajectory of the bullet than Choreolus would so I I agree. I think there's other ballistic issues You could discuss than snipers that would be issues But if you talk about the much longer distant Trajectories, you could claim that they need a choreolus, but actually I looked into that as well and really the wind is still the Way way more the primary factor and when they shoot those really long like ballistics They always miss it first They take their first shot and then they make their primary most important corrections Because they can never hit their target the first time when they're shooting that far away They can just get close like oh, we didn't count for the wind correctly So choreolus is all alleged choreolus is always drowned out by the wind corrections and the spin of the barrel so You know, it's just kind of a weird thing to talk about honestly also choreolus is a fictitious forest based on a frame of reference It's not even really a thing so Well, it is it is it is an effect It's a fictitious forest based on a frame of reference on a stationary earth. It would be real So if you claim it's real Welcome to stationary. It's based on the rotation of the earth that and the amount of land is rotating Yeah, I know nothing about that. I tried to shoot a bow and arrow Yesterday and the arrow fell to the ground on my feet. I should have accounted for the spin of the earth The only way if you see if you shoot at a target that's further than the curve of the earth. It's not actually there. It's an illusion Shoot down Well, let's continue on from there everybody and i'm going to get my scroll on again here And question coming in uh from lj for 999. Thank you so much to you lj for your super chat and everybody else for their super chats NASA has billions and can break any law they want Compare that to us normal everyday humans Is hilarious now go ahead and give me one video showing real footage of space It's our tax money after all You want to go Peter? Yeah, for sure. You can open the youtube live literally youtube live from the international space station Yes, we can see the curvature of the earth from that angle from that height NASA can break any laws What what laws are they breaking? I'm not I'm not aware of any laws reason Rod But I would I would also like to point out that NASA is not the only space agency out there, you know, China has Send things to the moon recently. Brazil has a space agency Russia, I don't know Crashed on the moon recently Hey, can we look up these people? Have you guys actually watched the footage from them or are you just bringing them up? Have you ever actually watched the footage from them? Yeah, I know It's the biggest on this stuff. I've ever seen them. Have you ever watched the China? Well, that's kind of the question like the question like It's so funny, bro. It's like Can you tell me the Japanese and Chinese space footage bro? Like You might be too gone, bro So normal citizens get away with breaking the law all the time too They get away with breaking felonies all the time not all criminals are caught So the fact that somebody has billions of dollars if they get caught maybe they get better lawyers To get out of it the fact that NASA does have authority doesn't mean they are breaking laws Doesn't mean they are actually being treasonous So, um, yeah, so that's a fallacious argument Okay They're saying that he can obviously they do have protection They have all kinds of allowances on their national corporations to lie and then commit fraud and and admittedly they do have protection But his point was it's like to pretend that we as people who have just woken up to the deception can compete with someone With billions of dollars allowed to lie with protection from the government is this ingenuous. That was his actual Like all corporations can have government protection is why I That's another debate topic. I oppose corporate protection in general. I I don't think NASA's should exist with the government protection it has. I think it should be privately run But I think that's a different discussion.  I don't agree with him. I'm not a libertarian I'm very left-leaning Oh, bro, you were just so much cooler five seconds ago Why?  I'm not religious Well, you believe in god. That's all I mean Well, it's a yeah I'm logical enough to understand the necessary antecedent creation as a creator and then it requires intelligence Not an determination and intention to have the natural intrinsic order that we have near I believe everything's natural Do you believe there's an order on the earth? No, I believe The earth isn't ordered I thought everything in physics was constantly seeking equilibrium That's chaos Seeking equilibrium is chaos. Yes So is equilibrium chaos or order? um chaos Equilibrium is chaos. Yeah, so when the heat spreads out That's chaos. Yes, it's equilibrium is a state of equilibrium order Where the thermal heat spreads out evenly that's what everything seeks it seeks this state of chaos Does it started out orderly If like our current model is correct the universe started out orderly and it's going into chaos All right, bro. All right, bro But those are just adjectives. They don't mean shit Yeah, okay All right, let's continue on Yeah, everybody keep those live chats coming in we got lots to go through but we do appreciate everybody's super chats here It's spurring on more discussion and we always appreciate that here at modern day debate Why don't you click that like button while you're at it? Alrighty, let's continue on Ah, did you do? Oh, wow. Yeah, I got it. I wasn't kidding when I said I'm going to be doing that big scroll Elijah Riviera Another one five dollars to the flat earthers. Did you guys learn about flat earth through a website and magazine called popular mechanics? The editor was involved in 9 11 No, I'm not sure I did not Learn about flat earth through popular mechanics A colleague in science is stews next You guys want to know how we learn about flat earth someone mentioned the idea.  Then we turned into flat earthers because the earth is not a globe and we had to learn the claims of the globe Which most people who think the earth's a globe have yet to do and then we went and tested those things that we learned and we found out This doesn't add up the earth is provably and measurably not the globe they claimed it Then a bunch of people make it weird without ever doing that whole thing that we did and then we had to sit here and entertain them and try to make jokes I just showed evidence. It's curved. So Okay, well, what audience aside if you showed evidence that the earth's a globe Yeah, I want to I want to ask you guys a question. Am I allowed to do that right real quick? Sure thing. I need 10 push-ups and then you can Okay, I I don't think I can my shoulders I think I can do push-ups. Uh, yeah Do you guys believe in other Things that are considered conspiracies like vaccines don't work. I know the virus came from YouTube doesn't like vaccine debate. We don't believe no. We don't believe anything came from china We're actually not even allowed to talk about that. That's how you know That's how you know exactly what they said is true Can you get me because you're not allowed to talk trouble? Yeah, sorry. Sorry. I'm not allowed to talk about it. Yeah, let's try. That's how you know Let's try not say the b-word anymore. Yeah, I just forcibly not allow them to talk about it Definitely not suspects. Yeah, and I think that's good. By the way, I think I disagree with Peter That's the problem. All heartedly Freedom of expression.  Thank you mount rush more rush more. Yeah You should read my motion to dismiss dude You should read my motion to dismiss for facial invalidity of the free speech law Because the government's super corrupt. You're at least at least you're libertarian. I can Maybe have a beer with you. You know, like at least you understand that Yeah, I'm actually more of a social liberal, but leaning I was trying to meet you halfway, bro I can meet you for a minute. No, actually I actually think women or men can get pregnant There's seven thousand engineers and if you question me and I don't bow to israel and oh my gosh science The air is going to kill me and the government loves to kill the vibe, bro Eight billion people. So eight billion individual unique identities Yeah You agree the government lies to us and we should think for ourselves Um, government can lie to us. Yes, you agree the government should just back up off of us and let us do our own thing And we're free creatures Yes, I believe Open borders free trade. I I'm all for all that. I don't think the government should limit Us in those regards should you be forced to open your door and unlock it? All right, let's not let's not side check It would be a fun conversation. Well, I have I have a spicy Well, not as spicy as we've seen, but it's pretty spicy the craw daddy. Oh two nine five dollars I'm confused.  Yes, that's a troll I'm pointing out that I'm pretty sure it is a troll But I'm always going to use it as an opportunity to teach the people brother So the rise is actually where the sky appears to meet the ground just an optical effect The parent location it goes up and down back and forth It's not physical But if you're a football there has to be a physical hump Like a hill in front of you that blocks things and this is this is basic geometry There should be a physical tangible curvature of the earth The leading edge of a sphere that blocks things in the distance with a predicted distance We actually don't see that everything falls case Everything falls down away from you on a ball You know what I'm notice about you, man? Falls down Notice about you man is like even though it was my turn to answer the question that was given to us Like when you start to hear me lay it out coherently and it begins to build You feel the need to shut it down So that you can't hear the whole thing in context. I think that's why fighters get interrupted. So I think this is an excellent point. What's it? Yeah, bro Because me and Karen will just sit here and chill and talk about all kinds of super deep profound things We want to interrupt each other and we'll learn tons of stuff But globers like they can't take like More than 10 consecutive seconds of coherence or like shut it down censor it. I can't hear it Abort abort abort All right, well, let's just make an appointment super chat cleric find a point. That's all it was doing You did it a little early All right, well, let's continue on with the super chats everyone. Uh, All right, so lj $1.99 you got a fan. What's it gonna cook these two? brainwashed guys flat bro This guy agrees with you there. What's it and he's uh So that that's a good offset right there, you know, we have one person coming at you and another one complimenting. So, uh, We balanced the scales of the universe everybody Elijah Riviera $5. Just be careful Ozyon has worked at the navy. Maybe navy intelligence the same agency that hired lee harvey Oswald next time get me to join you, bud It's also a little bit true. Yeah, but hit me up on Anything He thinks i'm a Fed like i'm an actual I don't think so. I don't think so. I don't a lot of people said Ah, I like when people say i was in the navy It's funny. Well, I let them think it too. You weren't p paid to defend the globe or you would be better at it Um, yeah, I think so I would actually i'm sorry.  They would actually know how to rebut basic like Nah You guys underestimate how much of like It's embarrassing to go against the consensus and some people aren't built for that, bro Like they have to conform They want to be considered smart and they see a ticket being smart for making fun of the people that challenge the consensus No matter how much more informed they are So don't underestimate what that will do like the the require like the longing to fit in In and not feel stupid That'll make people do all kinds of stuff It'll make it'll make people act as if they're hired by the government to be their defense attorney and That's what we get. I'm a I'm a libertarian atheist. I don't fit in with it like hardly any groups, but I think You just defended the mainstream propaganda from the government multiple times though Okay, but to bring up a point. I think I a lot of people who are educated in this topic don't even Consider debating these issues. They don't even come on to these programs. Most of them don't Well, I talked to them. They actually know Yeah, exactly. I talked to like who you're talking about like dhd astrophysicists physicists quantum physicists astronomers Who would you be talking? I talked to all of them They know less than the anti-flatter. There's they don't come on to these debates. It's all I'm saying That's right because they couldn't publicly they couldn't take the take the opportunity to publicly Lose a conversation about something as foundational as the earth. It would be detrimental With with all the respect That's not the reason they see this as losing time okay, so my my teacher Of numerical methodologies, for example, we're gonna have a submarine gel acoustics course And he invited me and he selected only some students, you know, because He's accurate with his time Like he doesn't want people that he doesn't want in the course. So Yeah, they would see this what we're doing as a waste of time, you know, I should they would say Oh, I can honestly I see it as a waste of time As you guys aren't ready to listen, but it's for the it's for the audience By the way, I talked to phd astronomers who definitely don't think it's a waste of time when I bring up that the Hubble tension is off by five to seven megaparsecs and that the inflation theory is contradictory to early dark energy Which is the alleged explanation for the uh, the two for the like extreme formations of the early galaxies And whenever I explain the horizon problem and the flatness problem and the cosmological problem and the cosmological constant problem And the axis of evil. So when I talk to these people actually they end up getting dunked on so they they prefer to be behind the scenes I'm not trying to be cocky. I mean, I'm not saying I'm amazing to know everything I've talked to them. They said it's it's It's too fringe of a subject to talk about publicly Because it puts me in a risky position um That's just a fact. That's what it actually is They actually enjoy talking to us because we think of ourselves and we research things in depth We don't just regurgitate, you know claim in term Propaganda, so I would have to disagree with they also depend on funding, you know, they need to keep their funding. So Any any teacher would see you guys as I don't want to be offensive But would see you as below their level, you know, even though I just talked to multiple phd's Okay, I just want to bring up wait. We jen who had to go for emergency or something whatever No, she she has her own view of the universe I don't know. I think you've talked to her before like she has his own theory of physics and stuff So she's definitely out of the mainstream. She still believes the earth Is a globe, right? But um Um, what is it going to point out what you said axes of evil what I heard that in there, right? Did you see axes of evil? what Well, like in world war two like yeah No, and it was also called that it when george busch was president about the middle east, right? But anyway, there's something called the cosmological background like the cosmic microwave background cmb Yeah, that's all the energy that was observed with a certain frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum in the background Okay, well the big bang model claims there was a singularity and everything exploded and expanded out from there But but it's actually simultaneously expanding from every direction at the same time So it looks like we're in the center of the universe even though it's just an illusion. We're not Which is called But anyway, so they claim that it's isotropic Isotropic means no preferred direction And they claim it's homogenous Evenly distributed when they looked out at the cmb. It wasn't it was inhomogeneous and anisotropic Had a preferred direction in fact whenever you followed the inhomogeneous distribution of energy it intersected directly on the earth So they called that the axis of evil really because it went against the big bang cosmology That's a fact. That's what happened. So I find it very weird that science is bringing up the word evil almost as if a religion or something But yeah, it showed that the earth was in the center based on the anisotropic and homogenous distribution of the background energy I don't believe the I don't necessarily believe there was a singularity either I do believe there was some expansion, but I do agree. We do have problems with that I think we have a glaring problem with dark energy and dark matter that we need to find a way to explain Why we observed this lens or the phenomenon with gravity and stuff that's not explained by Einstein's physics. I understand all that like like they have come up with other series like mons Like um, it doesn't work though. It doesn't work. I agree. It doesn't work. I know that But they are trying to find ways to resolve it Yeah, yeah, I applaud you for being that honest I am honest like I think you're relatively honest. Yeah I Can be wrong I think you're definitely up there with the best Well, let's try to continue on everybody Nathan Thompson loved me for some reason like if you watch that debate Oh, I love I love everybody. Let's continue on Lj 4.99 Lj for 4.99. Thanks for your super chat. Even my dog knows the moon landing was faked and the earth is level Ah, we're almost into the Trolling super chats again. So thank you lj. Let's continue on because We've got a lot of super chats that are pretty pertinent to the conversation. Congo 44 or five dollars. Which it please give the law of Perspective, please give me the function so I can apply it on an observation Yeah, so you have something called eye level and that gives you your diffraction line or diffraction limit So if you look out, basically you have an angle going out like this draw a line right through the middle of it That's your eye level. So based on where you are above the ground You're going to have that reach the ground faster than what's above it long story short You have an angular resolution limit to the eye And then what you're looking at will give you propagation and reception angles And if those angles fall below your angular resolution limit, then you'll no longer be able to resolve it So there you guys pray it's pretty simple overall like you can't see forever You have an angular resolution limit. You can look into Rayleigh criteria You can apply that to our observations And that's why things disappear from the bottom up because they actually lose resolvability first This is basic physics. You can go The experiments done by harper b y u cambridge, etc Alrighty, I think that answered your question. Well, let's continue on from there And yeah, let's keep those super chats coming in and thanks for the response there. What's it? Did you have any thoughts on that Karen? No, I think what's it got are pretty good I agree with what you said.  And firmament sorry I actually think that we uh have a force field that has different density layers of plasma I don't even claim the distances, but that's just what evidence shows and We're like about to send up a high altitude balloon about 30 30 miles I think I mean, yeah, we're the only ones that do tests to be honest other than like pretending that we saw the the curved horizon with a curved lens, but I don't think that you can send a balloon to the containment limit. That's insane. You can't send it higher than 120 000 feet So that's a ridiculous question. I think that there's a force filled with density layers of plasma It's illegal to even try to buy the fuel to send a rocket that which is again probably another All right. Well, let's continue on from there. Is it illegal? Kevo 499. Yeah, you have to have the government's permission Yeah, yeah, so kevo for 499. This is for you. Oh zion Uzi and no, I know I know what it is now. I know what it is.  Yeah, oh zion. It is Oh zion or ozien or ozien ozien. Oh zion. Sorry I hit zionism I've been using the name for like 30 years now. So Everybody we're having a good time here and if you're having a good time as well hit the like button Oh zion has refused to concede that objects converge to eye level due to perspective classic globy cognitive dissonance Please respond anything to say there I didn't deny that they appear to converge So they do appear to converge at eye level, but if your eye level is at the sea level Like halfway below it doesn't the ground doesn't go up The the objects come down converge to your eye level, which would be where you're right there with your eyes And that's not what I was demonstrating with my drone my drone clearly showed that 20 percent more of the ship was exposed Now what you showed was that you changed your u.s. You got Your angle of resolvability specifically your reception angle increased as you increase in height. This is just objective science physics Whatever, you know, we could deny it. I guess sure well, let's carry on and Yeah, we got lots more questions coming in here So, uh, yeah, we uh, we'll just try to carry on there Uh, so the crawdaddy o two nine I would like to apologize to everyone here on the behalf of modern day debate for making us all dumber Happening to listen to flat earth nonsense. Oh my maybe I shouldn't have read that one. That's a little spicy That's all they have. It's okay. I think it's I think it's funny. I think it's Why are these some of the most popular views you get this and like because people gra