Good evening everybody and welcome to modern day debate. Tonight we're going to be debating, was the moon landing a hoax? And to get us started off we have Ross. So Ross, the floor is all yours. Windows Diaz. I want to thank everybody for tuning in today. Dustin, fight the flat earth, excuse me, and Ozean who I regard very well. As anybody who's seen any of my other debates know, my favorite subject to discuss out of any other subject is history. I always say that I got my degree or I did my degree in political science, which is the history of lying.  But that sounds cliche, right? But, you know, I like to take the logical analysis or Occam's razor's way of looking at things when I'm examining almost everything, especially when it comes to history. You know, so I'm a guy that was born here in America and, you know, here in America, we're told a lot of things about history. As a matter of fact, we were told Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction not that long ago. And a lot of people believe that. And guess what happened after that?  You know, if you're taking the negative, right, then you don't have the burden of proof.  But I just, I just want to be clear, right? Most of the conversations that people have around this subject still are around whether or not it's even still possible to go to the moon, right? I'm not, look, I don't necessarily have the burden of proof, but I know you guys know this already and we can pull all this up if you want, right? But right now, right in NASA, they're still discussing whether it's even possible for humans to leave lower earth orbit, right? So before we even get into a conversation about have we been to the moon, right? We're still at the conversation on whether or not it's possible, right? Like, this is a fact, right? You guys know this. I mean, if you say that that's not true, then you're a science denier, right?  You don't believe what I guess NASA is saying because they're saying, yeah, after we maybe find a way to get through the van Allen Belt, maybe we'll be able to get humans out of lower earth orbit. So if they haven't figured that out now, why haven't you guys realized that people lie, right? In history, it's just a set of lies agreed upon. And I know I've said this in every single debate I've been in, right? I'm like the number one issue in every part of society is government intervention, right? So this is like a government, everybody knows that governments lie, right? If you're out there right now, nobody's gonna say, no, I believe my government 100%.  Once, twice, three times, what, 50 times? I don't know. But for me, it's one time, all right? If I'm in a relationship with somebody and they lie to me to my face, I'm like, okay, well I have to now verify everything this person says, right? So I hope that you guys don't have any information that is gonna prove that we went to the moon from the people that are on trial today, right? Because the people who are on trial, right? Like if somebody committed a murder, when they get on the stand, they say, I didn't do it. That's not evidence that they didn't do it, all right? So like I said, this is my favorite, it's my favorite subject to talk about because you really do have to prove what it is that you're saying when it comes to history. Because there's so many different stories. Matter of fact, there's countless footage of people back then saying that they never believed that we went to the moon. Anybody that watches that moon footage know we didn't go to the moon. Like I said, to me, this is almost, I'm surprised a little bit that you guys even showed up today because this is a little silly. Like why do we still think that we went to the moon back then when we can't even get out of lower earth orbit now, right? I mean, there's literally testimony from the son of the military guards, right? At the moon, set, right? On his deathbed, there's video testimony confirmed that, yeah, like all of this was shot. I'm like, they had to admit this already. They literally said, oh well, you know, some of the footage didn't make it. So we had to redo some of the footage. All right, so if they lie once, I'm supposed to assume that they didn't lie the rest of the time now, right? Okay. So if you want me to believe something that happened in history, you're gonna have to redo some type of evidence. I don't know where my time is at, you know what I mean, but let me know when I'm at six minutes, please. Or at least, like, okay, good. All right. So like I said, tons of, I mean, there is even video of Buds Aldrich himself saying that the footage that we saw from the moon landing is not the real footage. Yeah, they got damaged, whatever their excuses, right? All right. Do you lie one time? Now, everything else you say after that, it needs to be verified.  We all know governments lie, right? So I said this in my last, in my last debate, go look up the website that is tracking how many citizens, right, have been killed by their own governments versus the amount of people who have been killed in the meat grinder that we call war, right? Governments are the most evil thing on the planet 100%. All right. So I mean, this is like, this is the last thing I want to say on this, right? And like I said, whatever evidence you guys have, I'm just going to pick it apart and for its validity, right? But this is what I want you guys to understand, right? When we talk about slavery, right? It doesn't have anything to do with a color, right? Slavery is people forcing you to work and then taking your money after it, all right? And we're really sophisticated now.   The most creative ways they have to steal the money. Number one is, it's fake space travel. I want to say the first billion-dollar budget they were able to justify taking from the taxpayer money, giving to the citizens was either the nuclear bombs, which are fake, right? And also the moon landing, right? Think about it. We're talking about $30 billion, right? That they took from you guys and you're saying that the evidence that they actually utilized at $30 billion is a movie. It's literally a movie. That's what it is. So if you like think about it, if I told you that somebody stole $30 billion from you, your ancestors and your kids in the future, if you're not at least interested in finding out whether or not that's true, then you're kind of letting me know what team you work for. Because if somebody told me that somebody stole this much money from me, I would at least investigate it to want to know, I would want to verify with empirical evidence that they actually did what they said they're doing with the money. So there are whole organizations right now that are trying to audit NASA right now, right? I said, we don't even have to go into this because any, look, the main point that I want everybody to understand is that the government is stealing money from you, right? That's what taxes are. And you know how they justify it? Through creative ways, you know what I mean? Things that, you know, that people hope are going to happen in the future. Oh, we're going to do this to you. If you're not interested in validating whether or not they're not stealing the money from you, then I don't know. I kind of understand what team you work for. So I want to hear what you guys have to say. Go ahead, Dustin. All right. Six minutes on the floor. Dustin. Thank you, Will said. I probably want beautiful six. Yeah, I hear something. Does anybody have YouTube running or in monitors? Okay. Must have been something going on over there with Ross. Go ahead. Six minutes on the floor for you there, Dustin. Okay, we're good. So I may not need the full six, but here we go. I am, as many of you know, Dustin Nemos, the reporter, journalist, author, and also known as the archivist more recently. You may choose to place the burden of proof on our shoulders tonight and say, why do you doubt the official science of world governments? I would then reply, why do you believe it? This belief is fairly recent and completely hinges on unproven theories such as space. It's hard to believe the moon landing was real when NASA, what NASA is claiming is that they have gone a thousand times further than they can go today with 50 year old technology on the first attempt with one, one millionth the computer computing power of what is in your modern cell phone. There's now clear evidence of NASA using numerous, numerous methods to mislead the public about astronauts being on the ISS, including air bubbles, wires, harnesses, green screens, virtual reality strings, gravity, grabbing objects that are not even there, etc. Space is a satanic secret society deception. The elite are ruled by a cult that worships the demigod Nephilim or Anunnaki lineage of the fallen angels of Genesis 6. They have created entire branches of false science around the Copernican revolution, now thoroughly debunked theory that the world moves around the sun, which is why we're really here, in order to convince us that the world is a globular rock cannonball, corkscrewing amidst infinite void covered in water with infinite other globular rocks and dust shotgunning behind. A rock that is billions of years old, merry go rounding around a burning giant fart that itself shoots through space at incredible speeds without flinging us off through velocity or momentum, while maintaining a gravity without any form of barrier. This is impossible. While maintaining absolute clockwork precision, also, we can find lucky moments of absolute stillness without so much as a breeze. In truth, the demonstrably biblical earth is young, stationary, geocentric, flat, hollow, and domed, just like the Bible said. And they are spending vast quantities of your tax dollars to make A.M. unintended. Sure, you don't find out. NASA are liars, and the deep state science backing their theories are as much based on the scientific method as cigarettes for pregnant women and other forms of fake science that we're more familiar with that I can't talk about on YouTube. May iron sharpen iron, and may the best arguments win. All glory to Yahweh, Jesus's King. As for me, I stand witness as a former devout lifelong anti-God atheist, devout atheist, who never lost a single debate with any religious person in my life. That as someone who tested biblical earth, I converted to scientific fundamentalist Jesus freak instantly upon testing of various religious holy texts, including the Hebrew Bible, and only the Hebrew Bible has 100% accurate, synchronized prophecies in fine detail by the hundreds or thousands, hundreds or thousands of years apart every single time. I stand corrected and humbled eternally, having been a know-it-all before, and in my time I have woken up tens of thousands of others to Christ, to Yahweh, and to biblical earth using the scientific method. We still got three minutes on the clock. If we could just pull it back to the moon landing, just because we've gotten into a separate subject, which we are happy to debate here on Modern Day Debate, but if we could focus on the moon landing specifically for the last three minutes of your time. Thanks so much for that. Have a great guy. Okay, so that was basically the end of my testimony. Anyway, I had about a sentence there left, just that I've investigated all this and it checks out. There's a number of issues with the moon landing, including rover tracks that are not lining up correctly, being fake, the entire cosmology of course. Plasma, translucent moon is also an issue. You can't land on the moon because it is not a physical object, it is not rock. They are faking curves with fish eye lenses. They're faking moon rocks that were actually found out to be petrified wood. They never have any stars. Who's holding the camera for the lander anyway as it pans down and shakes and trembles from the moon's surface before they've landed. There's missing majestic earth. According to the astronauts, the moon is four times larger in the moon's nights. I'm sorry, the earth is four times larger in the moon's night sky than the moon is in the earth's night sky. Yet you never see that on any of their starless nights on the moon landing photos. There's impossible temperatures. They would have to go through 35,000 degrees of Fahrenheit temperature in order to get through the Van Alen radiation belt with what is essentially a tinfoil aluminum cardboard box that is missing bolts that you can see in the original photos. There's wind on the moon with the flag and there's no jet imprint from the landing. There's a number of other issues. We can go into NASA's other lies and baking space in a number of ways like ISS and green screens and bubbles and harnesses and such. But I like to focus on the agenda because it really is ultimately to hide God. It goes back to Rome and about 500 years ago, a cardinal named Woolsey and a strategy called Learning Against Learning. That's where they invented fake science and started to pioneer it. I'm done. All right. Well, you saw 30 seconds there. So thank you so much for the introductory statement there. I did want to make sure you didn't run out of time before you got full circle there. So sorry for injecting. So thank you, Ross and Dustin, both of you for your introductions. I'm going to hand it over to FTFE for your up to six minute introductory statement. Floors all yours. Well, Osean's going to go first on our side. So Osean can take away. I knew you had a presentation. So go ahead there Osean. Floor is all yours. There you go. You're up and running. Can't hear you yet though. There you go. You hear me now? Yes. Yes. Good. All right. Sorry about that. Thank you for hosting the show today, modern day debate. Thank you Craig for being my teammate. Thank you Dustin and Ross for having this debate with us. Please follow me at Matters Now. I'm going to have an after show after this. So come check it out. So and here's Kennedy. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. So I do make an historical claim, which doesn't require empirical evidence. I don't know why somebody said that earlier. Belief in a historical event is justified when primary sources and independent secondary sources agree and even hostile sources affirm it. If only unsubstantiated conspiracy theories disagree, it's rational to accept the moon landings as fact as 71% of Americans do. The primary sources we will cover include NASA mission reports and documents, astronaut testimonies, and photographic and video evidence. Documents pertaining to the Apollo 11 missions are available on NASA. This archive includes pre-flight documents as seen here, stowage lists, in-flight documents, and post-flight documents. Primary sources include astronaut testimonials and video footage of them on the moon speaking with President Nixon and mission control. Apollo 11, Roger 12, Apollo 11, we're on the same type, we're go flight. Okay, we're go. We're go, same type, we're go. Flight side of right on, real good. And here the full Nixon video can be found on YouTube. All the people on this earth are truly white. One in their pride in what you have done. Notice the delay. I want to watch Apollo 11 astronauts with the 83 minute post-flight presence conference on YouTube if you want. Now this occurred in a vicinity close to the landing site. These slides show extensive video and photo proof of Apollo 11's lunar landing far more than for Washington's Delaware crossing on Pritzmer's Bay of 1776, which has absolutely no video or photo evidence underscoring the strong evidence validating the moon landing. It would be preposterous to doubt such historical claims just because we don't have photographs or videos, but within the context of the Apollo missions, we have all of the above. Our checklist confirms many primary sources supporting the moon landing, just finding belief in its truth using just primary historical sources alone, but I am not going to stop there. In July 1969, Larry Basinger independently detected Apollo 11's radio signals from the moon. This along with scientific insights gained from lunar missions deepened our understanding of planetary science and airless surfaces. Basinger's work alongside academic research based on lunar data serves as independent confirmation of the moon landing, offering support beyond NASA's account. His efforts provide a unique observational confirmation of the historical event. Two of my three points are confirmed. I could have included worldwide newspapers that also back the moon landing, but I'm limited to six minutes for my opening presentation. What about hostile sources? What are they? The USSR, which first sent a man to space, was first for many things when it came to the space race. But the US wanted to be first the land on the moon. And the US beat them! USSR journalist Joris Slav stated, but later, when they did overtake us, we had to maintain secrecy so that no one knew that we had been overtaken. This statement from a Soviet journalist is a hostile secondary source confirming the USSR lost the space race and confirms the US moon landing. This is the most damning piece of evidence against the deniers of the moon landing. I can't believe that 12% of Americans still deny this historical fact, but our Cold War enemies were convinced that we went to the moon and there has never been a satisfactory explanation for why the USists are confirmed when we went to the moon. All three criteria on my list have been met. We can confidently believe that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon on July 20th, 1969. Any post-talk conspiracy theories lack rational foundation and have been effectively challenged in my previous discussions on this channel. I'm open to hearing any claims about physical impossibility. I can easily refute those. And to make sense, we brought in religion for some reason. Christianity is false, the Bible is false because naturalism is true. All examples of causation are physical. We have no examples of non-physical causation, so I am convinced that God doesn't exist, so your Bible is false. So I don't really care about any of your biblical claims in this debate. And I will cede the rest of my time to Craig. All right, well thank you so much for that. We'll end the screen share there and just remind everybody what we get that taken down, that we are going to do a Q&A at the end of our discussion here, so I'll just stop that there. So we're going to kick it over to FTFE. So with that, you still have seven and a half minutes on your side to go, so you can eat them up how you'd like. Okay, well probably don't need the whole seven and a half minutes ready, because there's some very simple reasons why it's quite clear we did go to the moon. Now, even though in this conversation, we do not have the burden of proof, because it's very simple in logic that the claim that goes against the status quo has the burden. And we, Osin and I here, we are representing the status quo, the understanding that we did go to the moon, which is the generally accepted position. But that's irrelevant, because I am going to give evidence. And I'm going to give, talk about two things specifically. One thing Osin briefly touched on, which is the third party verification of the moon landing from sources outside of NASA, and the fact that it would have been harder to fake it than go. So we're talking about third party verification. The sources outside of NASA, obviously the best one to talk about is what Osin touched on. And that's the Soviet Union's tracking. The Soviet Union had its own space tracking capabilities, and was in direct competition with the United States during the Cold War and the space race. They're tracking of the Apollo missions and acknowledgement of the US's achievement serve as a form of third party verification and references to Soviet tracking and acknowledgement can often be found in Cold War history books and space race documentaries. What you guys need to understand is that NASA were losing the space race. The only thing that they did first was get to the moon. Russia were the first person to put stuff in orbit. Russia were the first person to put humans and animals in orbit. NASA needed to do something so they went to the moon and the Soviets confirmed that that happened. But it's not just the Soviets. There's so many other ways, the third party verification that was shown. Parks Observatory, the Parks Radio Telescope in Australia played a significant role in receiving live television broadcasts of the Apollo 11 moonwalk. The involvement of the Parks Observatory is well documented in various scientific publications and historical accounts of the Apollo 11 missions. So the fact that the signal was received in Australia and had to then be fed back to America because of the positions and where it was, that's someone completely outside of NASA. It's the Australians, nothing to do with NASA. They verify that it happens. I probably get a pronunciation of this wrong. The Arquibo Observatory in Puerto Rico, which was the largest single dish radio telescope until its collapse in 2020, also tracked the Apollo missions. Though primarily a scientific research facility, its capabilities were suitable for tracking space missions. So that's another, you know, nothing to do with the US, nothing to do with NASA. Puerto Rico, they tracked it with their own technology. The Jordan Bank Observatory located in the UK tracked the Apollo missions, including the famous Apollo 11 mission. The observatory's involvement provides additional third party verification from a reputable scientific institution. And there's all this data is contained within history books and museums in the UK. And apart from that, there was amateur radio operators, enthusiasts around the world listened to and recorded the transmissions between Apollo and mission control. And the recordings themselves served as independent evidence of the missions. And there was thousands of amateur radio operators that literally tracked these signals from Apollo going to the moon. International observatories and space tracking stations, other countries and their observatories, including those in Spain, Australia, the United States, they all contributed to tracking and receiving data from the Apollo missions. The global network of tracking stations under a deep space network international partners provided robust third party verification. So it's not just NASA that would have had to fake this.  And it's not just NASA that say it happened. But apart from that, I want to quickly talk about the actual recordings. Okay. Now, when the it was broadcast from the moon, they had to do it in a particular way that they use a specific specifically designed slow scan camera for live broadcast, the operator 10 frames per second, which wasn't what was standard in the time, the standard kind of technology that was around in the time was like 24 frames per second. That was what we broadcast on TV. Now, the fact that it was broadcast at a different rate to what was standard on TV shows one thing, but the other thing is the claims that it being in slow motion because on the moon and the movements and stuff, that would have required something that would have required filming what they did at twice the speed or more, and then slowing it down and playing it back. Now, this would have been impractical for many reasons. The main reason being the physical limitation of the amount of storage media that existed at the time and the prohibitive expense that that would have required. There was not enough physical storage media to store the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours of video from the Apollo missions and have them played back at half the speed, meaning more than twice the storage media required that technology that amount of storage media simply did not exist. So there's that. And I can hear you laughing, Ross. You know, you can. Sorry, I thought I was, I thought I was muted still. My bad. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. So the, the, the technical limitations of the time in regards to broadcast technology and recording technology would have made the actual faking of the moon missions practically impossible at the time. It more expensive and more technology than actually existed. And I think those two things alone require a lot of debunking from the other side to show that the, you know, we did not go there. We can get into a bunch of the things that they brought up in the back and forth discussion, but I'm going to leave it there for my intro just to clarify the technology of recording made it practically impossible to fake the moon landings in the way that it said that they did. And the third party verification of the moon landing is all we need to show that it actually happened. All right. Well, thank you so much, FTFE, for your introductory statement. If it's your first time hanging out in the live chat, hit the like button and subscribe to the channel. It helps us out a lot. We're modern day debate. We're a neutral platform hosting debates on science, politics, religion and tonight was the moon landing a hoax. So we're going to hand it back over to the other side to answer to some of the things that they just heard in the introductory statements from the other side and get into an open discussion. So once again, Q&A at the end of the show, everybody. So get your super chats in and those will be read with priority over to you, Ross and Dustin.  So let me, you know, get my, I'm going to try to talk slow, but I just want to say it's amazing that you guys believe all that stuff happened, right? That the United States had not done anything that Russia had done. But then when they try to go to the moon, they did it on the first time, right? I think about what we're saying, right? The Earth is what- You need to do it the first time you're talking about. I think we might need to go to one minute, one minute response because I want to just get my thought out and you can respond after, right? When they attempted to go to the moon, right? Try to keep it open if we can, but carry on. Okay, look, when they attempted to go to the moon, right? They weren't even able to get people in space or satellites in space, but then they tried to go to the moon and they did it, right? I don't like the Earth is, what was the circumference? I don't know, 12,000 miles something. I don't know. Whatever the circumference of the Earth is, right? However long it would take an airplane to go around that, right? Imagine 10 times that they're saying that they went 10 times that distance across the vast space, right? Something that they had absolutely no prior engagement or knowledge. And you guys think you don't believe in God? That's wrong, man. No, no, no. Let me finish my question. My question is, you guys really think you don't believe in God? When you're saying like, yeah, we went to space- Let's keep God out of the conversation, please. That's irrelevant. Oh, no, no, no. You're believing in God. Because what you're saying right now sounds insane. Again, I don't want to discuss God. Can we please keep that out, the conversation of focus on the moon landing? You're discussing God because what you're saying right now is an act of God. For you to travel 250,000 miles. That's an act of God.  Let's clarify. And he won't let us talk. One second. Let's clarify something. Let's go into those one minute. This conversation is not about, this conversation is not about God. This is about the moon landing. I will not be discussing God because God is irrelevant to this conversation. You want to believe in God, that's absolutely fine. I don't believe in God at all. Well, you're the one that's bringing up God. So let's. No, no, no, no. You, that's about it. Ross, hold on. You were the one that brought up God. So let's, for this conversation, keep God out of it. Me and Ozin don't care about God. And let's just discuss the moon landing, okay? You are wrong. They didn't just go to the moon. That's why there were several Apollo missions before the ones that actually went to the moon, where they were testing the technology in orbit. Did they have a man in space before they went to the moon? Yes. So they put a man in space first and then they went to the moon? Yes. Yes, that's what the Apollo missions were for. When did they put a man in space? Ross, I'm answering your question. If you could shut up and let me talk. Let's just give you another 50 seconds and then we'll let Ozin in. And we got to hand it. That's news to me. I haven't seen proof of any of this. One second. Well, maybe you should actually research the claim. I didn't research. There's no proof in there. Ross, maybe you should research the claim and you would find out that they. Oh man, I'll let nothing go. I'll let nothing go. All right. So what we're going to do because Ozin's been holding his thought. Wait, he asked a question. He, I was going to say, he's been holding, you've been holding your thoughts since the beginning. So we're going to let FT, FE finish up his thought there and then hand it over to Ozin and Dustin. Okay. In that order, just to get everybody's thoughts out. So go ahead, FT. So, yeah, so, you know, they did go to space before they went to the moon. That's, you know, the Apollo one didn't go to the moon. There was a whole bunch of things before they went to the moon. So, you know, it's quite clear straight away that you have not researched this. Otherwise, you would know the basic things like that. They're involved in this discussion. So, yeah, you're basically, I'm not really sure how to go forward with this discussion because it's quite clear that you have not researched any of your claims. This is a historical conversation. It's a historical conversation. We have to prove something. Ozin, Ozin, Ozin, over to Ozin. We're going to get Ozin the next part here. Go ahead, Ozin. So, it began with the Mercury missions. There were several of those. I believe there were eight Mercury missions. There were four more Gemini missions. We went to space. Russia went to space. Americans went to space. Russia beat us to space. I hear you. We beat Russia to the moon. I hear you. I know that, but we're going to let us respond to the response. It's historical proof. Evidential claims. You made a claim.  But I'll let Dustin because he wants to talk. And then I think we should be a lot of ask questions. Go ahead there, Dustin. Okay. Can I get two minutes? I think just that's all I really need to think. It should be enough. We need to move the minute back and forth. That's, you know, what we may have to do just to mitigate the questions. I just have some things to get out before we get into crosstalk because I wanted to respond to some of the things that they had said. For the interest of being fair, I'll give you up to a minute because that's kind of what I've been trying to live here. Fine. I'll talk fast. First, the slideshow was a total appeal to authority. Fake news does the same thing today with its preferred platforms. Essentially, if you ignore all evidences, except official sources, you essentially discount all truth in a number of areas to compare the Moon landing's official nonsense based on circular reasoning of fake news. Reinforcing fake news is not evidence. He showed us nothing but audios and texts. If you consider it, there was zero evidence there. Also, the astronauts from every government are lying and in tune with a number of things like fake space. Causation is ironically absolute evidence for God due to the law of cause and effect, by the way. Also, in response to fight the Flat Earth, as to the comments from Fight the Flat Earth, also an appeal to authority because the other governments say NASA is correct, NASA must be correct. Why do they all have the same symbolism? Roscom and NASA share the same circuits, tongues, speaking to a fork and disc on a flat surface. They all push the same lies. NASA and Roscosmos and Science all have zero credibility. I've got more of it. Yeah, that would be time. So, yeah, one minute on the floor, other side. Go ahead. Yeah, just quickly respond to a few things he said there. No, there's no appeal to authority.  Therefore, it's real. Appeal to authority doesn't... If you go to actual authoritative sources about a thing, that know that thing, that's not an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to authority when it's someone that doesn't know that thing, but they're an authority. So, yeah, I don't know why you brought it up there. Also, your thing about God is just begging the question fallacy. It's as simple as that. Creation means that there must be a God. Therefore, God, that's literally begging the question of fallacy. So, let's remove God completely from the conversation.  And the other thing is the third party verification. No, I get a response too. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, okay, I'll give you my name. Well, we'll hand it back to their side and then bounce it back to your Osean. He attacked me. I need a response to an attack for his name. All right. Last 10 seconds there, fight the flatter. Yeah. So, the only other thing is that not the evidence that I talked about, the third party verification came from independent sources that are part of zero government or any agency at all. Osean, please. Over to you. All right, one minute on. Yeah, he's exactly, he's exactly right with, he's exactly right with the Petal Astoria fallacy. It's an informal fallacy anyway. So, it doesn't even mean it's false because even if it's a false authority, his claim could still be true. And I didn't make it, I didn't make such a claim. I made an historical argument. Somebody here claims the, the approve of historical arguments. We also need to be able to ask questions here too. So, this is going to be a grill on us. No, I made an argument. I laid out the criteria for accepting a historical claim as being true. You didn't refute any of the primary or secondary sources. You're just hand waving it, claiming that well, governments lying without proving that the governments are lying about these claims. All right. We have each of you one minute. You can go first. Okay, you want to go first. I'm addressing you. I would be, I would be very much happy to go into like the credibility of science, NASA, or governments on any of these issues. Like telling women to smoke cigarettes for their, when they're pregnant. Well, you could get evidence. I mean, there's a, there's a number of issues. They're, they're pretty much always wrong on every issue around the clock. So, the credibility is of course, no, I would like to finish. You can respond on your minute. We need to be able to say anything. They don't, they don't want me to talk. This is a minute. They're trying to talk me down. We should be, we should be able to cross-examine. Right, right, right. Not while I'm talking. That's fine, on your minute though. On your minute, ask us questions.  You have, you could attack my argument. I responded. I get no chance. He will, he will. Just let him say what he says. Unfortunately. You can go ahead. Yeah, if you don't feel like he's- You can give the floor to Dustin. Dustin can have the floor, but then we're just here to look pretty. Thank you very much. Well, you guys have done way more talking than I have. Have we not been paying attention to the emerging world government flexing its power lately? The UN was quoted. You're lagging out. Here they come, here they come. Here they come, yup. Oh, yes, you're lagging out.  You're lagging hard. How about now? How about now? Yeah, we can do that. We're good now, go ahead.  Have we not been paying attention to the power of emerging world governments lately flexing? The UN was quoted as saying, we own the science, which is why all the missions are named after false pagan gods like Apollo and Mercury, because the deep state too has a religion. The entire world did fake it. The governments are in collusion, and I can prove they are all ran by the same tribe in the news for bombing children en masse who hate God and refuse to speak his real name. Clearly they showed no evidence. We went, by the way, the burden of proof is not yet met. You have shown no evidence that this ever happened. And you know that we would tear it apart. Don't have burden of proof. That is a last term. Sorry, I was going to say, I don't mind deferring to Ozean, so he can respond to that and then get into a question. But if you want, we can do back and forth for like one minute, one minute, like per side. You know what I mean? So maybe me and then Ozean, and then... You're getting worried right now. Well, and then... Okay, well, I just want to... Because I don't want us to be interrupted. He's saying some good stuff, man. I just want...  If nobody had ever known anything and somebody said, hey, you see that planet up there? We went over there. We would say, all right, you have to show us some proof. And we're starting from zero. And if your proof is, it would be easier to just go than fake it.  Are you a critical figure at all? Or are you lying? It's one of the two. Because if I say, hey, we gave them $30 billion, what movie cost $30 billion? Hell no, it wouldn't be easier to make a damn movie than it would be to go to the moon a quarter million miles. Nobody has traveled a quarter million miles around the Earth in one shot. You're saying they did it to the moon. That defies all logic. So you want us to believe that that's the laws of physics. Is my minute over? Okay, you're kind of soapboxing, to be honest. I'm saying facts. You want us to believe that they defied the laws of physics. Young said a single fact. So there's no laws of physics. It's a nice example. You have no proof. Last 10 seconds here, Ross. Thank you. Thank you. Do you see how they're interrupting? That's how you know when they're getting mad, right? All right. The reality is that we thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We all believed it. Just because you hear something and you see some videos that don't mean it's true, guys. All right. We need empirical evidence. They got $30 billion for that. Go ahead, Craig. All right, that's time. Yeah, so you would need to give evidence that that technology to be able to do the faking existed, which I've never seen anything. So let's be clear that that technology doesn't exist and you need to provide evidence that the technology to fake it in the way that it was existed. It didn't. You can't provide evidence of it. So, yeah. Again, God is completely irrelevant to this conversation. I can. No, you can't because the technology did not exist. No, I can show that they faked it. You can show the technology to be able to fake it in that way existed, can you? Yeah. Things like where they filmed it on Earth match exactly with where they filmed it on places like Mars. No, no, no, no, I'm not asking for conspiracy claims. I'm asking you to show me the technology to do the slow motion at that time when they broadcast it at 10 frames per second and normal TV was 24 frames per second. I think you want better. I would like to. I'm still talking about this. I would like to see evidence that that actually existed. The technology physically to do the faking existed. Not just this looks like a same place. That's not showing me the technology. I want to see evidence, the technology to fake it. Okay, I'm ready. I'm ready. I'm going to show my screen. Here's the evidence. This is them faking Mars by using islands on Earth. Here's the. Okay, Mars is Mars. Here's the faking. Let's stick to this minute. It's his minute. It goes to credibility. All right. We're not going to do anything. Technically. Here we are. We got to go back to the moon landing. Let's stick to the moon landing. Okay. Stop. You guys don't like evidence of anything, but NASA is lying. I would like to talk about the moon. Are we doing minute, minute, minute? Are you interrupting? You're using non-credible sources. Your sources are non-credible and destroyed. The screen is up right now. So we're going to give Destin the last 30 seconds here and then we'll hand it over to Ozean. Try to pull this back in there. Your sources are completely non-credible including all governments including NASA and they're lying and it's clear and they're faking it and it's clear and you're defending it and it's clear and you're liars and it's clear and you have no burden of proof. You have nothing but appeals to authority like the government says so because the other government say so is circular reasoning.  Nothing plus nothing equals nothing. Nothing plus God equals everything. It's not a begging question policy. It's called the law of cause and effect. It's begging the question. Still got five seconds. I just want to point out that he did you're wrong. It's not begging the question. You don't know anything about logic. That is not begging the question. Now I'm saying just because you have it it is literally begging the question. You're done. I didn't mean it right. Just sorry guys. I said Ozean's turn next guys. He interrupted him though so I had to interrupt him back. He's interrupting my guys. All right if you guys keep making this impossible we will have to mosey somewhere else to another pocket of the internet. So we got to follow the rules that we're trying to set up here so we can keep this running on track. Like I said it's Ozean's turn so please respect the rules guys. Apparently it's impossible to have a discussion here but anyways Dustin just called us both liars so this is not going to be an honest debate anyways.   I don't really have much respect for you right now. So you said that witnesses shouldn't testify. So we presume people as being innocent. So the government the presumption should be the government is innocent of life and we allow people to give evidence on a witness stand to testify that they are innocent and testify on a witness stand and that is evidence. So you are wrong in your opening argument. You claim you support historical claims but you aspirate empirical evidence for historical claims. That's a joke history. Historical claims aren't science so you don't appreciate history. Historical claims about primary sources primary primary documentation secondary documentations in which we have loads tons and tons and tons and tons. We just landed a lunar lander on the moon two days ago. Okay I wanted to respond directly to what you said then I'll get into the other stuff I have written down. So that was that was pretty pretty good but the reality is that it's not like that it's not that they're on trial right. You're saying you did something right. Hey I saw a unicorn right or I did this. That's why I'm saying you have to provide evidence for it right. So we can go back and forth on that but I'm like it's a sticky subject with that one you know what I mean. But I did want to say that Craig said that you have to prove that the technology existed to fake the moon landing back then right. Okay but let me do you one better right because even if we can't prove it existed back then we can improve that the technology exists now. So whether they had it back then or not is up for debate but you know it's not up for debate. Can you prove that we have the technology to go to the moon right now? Can you prove that we have the technology to go to the moon even right now? You can't prove that we had it back then and you can't prove we have it. I am not done buddy. I get it. I know it hurts. This is a conversation dude. This is cool. But you have to listen and have a conversation. You have to listen. I am listening. You guys have been triggered the whole time. It's killing y'all. I get it. It's killing y'all. We haven't been triggered once. Ross you got 10 seconds. I don't know. Guys just I'm right. I'm like can I finish. I know. You got 10 seconds Ross. I swear. Listen. You don't. You can't prove we have the technology to go to the moon now. Yes we can. When we get it back then. So what do you mean? The least amount of assumptions all we have to do is assume that they're lying. We don't have to assume that. We know governments lie. So there's no assumptions in assuming we didn't go to the moon. There's tons of assumptions in assuming we did. All right. Over to FT. Oh wow wow. Okay. Okay. There's no assumptions. There is evidence that we can prove that we went. We can prove that we got the technology to go now. These things all exist. You just deny them. I want to make it absolutely 100% clear that when I asked for evidence of the technology existing for the moon landing, you know, the recording it being fake, that I was then showing pictures of Mars that are photoshopped. Put your hand down. I'll let you know when I'm done. All right. So there's no, you know, the question that I asked was not answered. He went on a rant about something else. Now again, this conversation is about the moon landing and the evidence of if we went or not. I was going to lie presented evidence showing that there's third-party verification and I have shown evidence that the technology to fake it did not exist based on the current technology at the time. Whether the technology exists now is irrelevant. You have the burden of proof to show the technology to fake it existed at the time. And that is what I'm asking. Please don't go on a total, you know, tangent. Just focus on that one thing and show me the technology. And a private company just landed on the moon two days ago. Private company, not a government. Go ahead, Dustin. Okay. I'm going to just let this play in the background since I will show once again the technology. So please make sure screen share is working. Is that? Yeah, we can see that. Yeah, technology in the 60s, please. My turn. Thanks. This is okay. My turn. Also, I did not. I did not show in technology in just one second. Can you make them spawn? They're incredible. They're very triggered. They're so triggered. First of all, I didn't ask for empirical evidence for historical event. I asked for proven science that stands up to scrutiny, including evidence. I also showed evidence that your witnesses, governments, and NASA are liars who, by the way, NASA has also given us whistleblowers who say it never happened. Here is one of your NASA astronauts lying to you with a green screen, faking gravity in space, lack of gravity in space, I should say. They're all liars. That's what they do. That is not NASA. 15 seconds. That is Karen Nyberg. No, no, no. It's Ozean next. It's Ozean's next. Craig, Ozean's next. Let him go. Jesus Christ. Do you even check your services? No, you're mad. Let your friend jump in. That is how it can be faked. Also, zero G planes is another way. Again, I asked her proof the technology existed. Ozean's third. You're interrupting your partners. Go on, Ozean. Josh, boys, chill out. Ozean. I asked her proof it existed. I'll be quiet if you be quiet. How about that? Both of us. I asked. Again, I just want to point out that my question wasn't responded to. You're right. You're right, Craig. Your answer, your question wasn't responded to, but Dustin claims he wants the truth. He just showed a lie. That video was made by Flat Earthers that was not an astronaut that has been confirmed to be a lie, a video that was made by a husband and white Flat Earther with a green screen.  That means he's the liar, right? No, he's probably doing it out of ignorance because he doesn't actually verify the source. He doesn't actually back check. No, it's not your turn. It's Ross's turn unless he wants to give the floor that you don't care about the truth, Dustin. This is not about the truth to you. This is about you preaching your cosmology. If you wanted to have a debate about the cosmology of the world, we should have had that debate because I could easily refute your religious beliefs. Please do. But that's not the debate here. Let's have that debate. Ten seconds. I accept. The debate we're having to debate. I accept. I accept. If we landed on the moon or not. I accept your challenge. I just want to say, I will concede 40 seconds of my time to Dustin. But I just want to stop by saying, like, oh, the reason why Dustin keeps showing that it's proof because if you're in court and you lie one time, the rest of your testimony is inadmissible. That's why he's saying that. He hasn't said that all the time. First of all, even if that is not here. The rest of my time to Dustin. Not you, Craig. Dustin. Even if that is not Karen Niberg, it looks a lot like her. However, you asked for the evidence of the technology, not a specific astronaut doing something. This actually would work for NASA to fake it and they do it often. They get caught doing it often with green screens. No, there's never been cool. Harnesses, bubbles, green screens near drowning incidents, grabbing things that are not there, disappearing out of holes that are not there, looking at things that are not there, all sorts of fake things they keep getting caught doing on their own official. All these have been debunked. So, so called ISS. No, it hasn't. So called ISS. It's all fake. Okay, I'm going to respond to that what he just said, right? What he just said about all NASA's fake stuff, right? No, right. They're specifically focused first on the person disappearing clip. Yeah. No, that was actually two clips put together. It wasn't one clip. So maybe you don't know what video editing is. To grab something. No, again, the video you've seen is just on a loop. The entire video watched the whole thing. He's actually moving his hands like that the entire time. So yeah, it has been debunked. There's never been anything proven to be fake from NASA. Just you guys say they are fake without any evidence or proof that they are fake. Now, I want to actually focus on the evidence and the things that were said here instead of just claiming governments lie, blah, blah, blah. Specific things that you guys brought up, right? You said they can only get to lower orbit, can't get past the van Allen belts. Yeah, again, right. That was out of context. They were talking specifically about the current technology and the challenges with that because it's a lot more susceptible to solar radiation. So just don't cherry pick, actually talk about context. You also said about Buzz Aldrin said we didn't go. No, he didn't. He was talking to a little girl about going back. He spent the entire conversation saying about how he went to the moon. Then at one bit, he was talking about going back and he said, no, we didn't because they didn't go back.  Because he didn't fund it. It is Dustin's time now. Because yeah, I conceded my last time. Ross, you know, you're not the moderator. So just, you know, let them try to be a fair man. Are you? Look, look, we're civil in America. All right. I don't know how you guys can tell here in America. We're civil and we're we like to let other people talk it here. Then now the reason why you guys are there. All right. I don't do the reason why we can't have a civil discussion back and forth is because of you, Ross. Yeah. You guys have been way more triggered than he is specifically. What did I do? You guys got him. I sent him by yelling over. You won't do it back and forth. You want one minute speaking dialogue? How am I not doing back before? I said, ask me.  You guys like to do that and not give the chance to respond. You know, conversations have interjections, Ross. Conversations have interjections. If you want to know though, if you're not listening, then I understand. At a certain point, if you're not listening, the conversation is over. So that's why we need to do one minute. Well, we are listening. That's why we're in suggestion now. Well, you're not.  All right. We're Dustin's sharing the screen. You're not doing that. Dustin, you got 45. Okay. So basically, I'm going to show you a couple seconds here of moon wind. Check that out. Watch this flag. Let's see. Where was it? It might be at the wrong time. Okay. Yeah, the flag is moving because of inertia. It's simple as that. When they put it down, they moved it, and there's nothing to stop it moving. End of story. Next. No. It doesn't ripple because of that. You can, it's definitely not rippling that quickly. It's rippling because of that. Okay. The answer is, I know you're going to ignore the answer, but the answer is the flag is moving because they were moving it when they put it into the ground, and the inertia kept it moving because there's no friction in space to stop it moving. That's why it moved. Simple. Done. Next. Nope. That's not how it works. Yes. You can say no or you like. There's clearly friction. There's clearly friction, or they would drift off into space. When they put it up, Dustin, hold on, hold on, hold on. You can say no or you like, but it doesn't change the fact that I just debunked you. I didn't say no. You did not just debunk him. I did. You want to hear what I actually said? You are saying no. That's all. You are saying no to the debunk. You want to let me talk? I just debunked you. No, you didn't. Because what you're saying is incorrect, and I could debunk that. Actually, let me talk. Can you mute this asshole? He likes to argue. He likes to argue. That's all I'm like. We'll give you the last 15 seconds. Still sharing the screen for a while there, so we're going to stop the screen share. What? And we'll give you the last 15 seconds. I'm waiting for you to debunk what I said. I haven't gotten to talk yet. I haven't even gotten to make the point yet. He just played the video. That's it. So basically, in essence here, if what you're saying is there's nothing to stop movement, then what stops the guy from drifting off into space every time he hops around? Gravity. Then why doesn't the flag stop? Because the flag is being pulled down by gravity, but that doesn't stop inertia and kinetic energy moving sideways. Then what stops them from drifting off? If it's so low, gravity is so low there. It's one-sixth of the earth. If this thing is flapping around like it's gotten. Yeah, gravity doesn't stop things flapping around. Gravity is pulling the flag and the astronauts down at the same rate, about one-sixth of that of earth. The movement of the flag is the energy into it. Yet that's why it's being pulled down to the moon by gravity, but that doesn't change the fact that the material can have other forces acting on it at the same time as gravity. Those forces are imparted by the astronaut putting it into the ground and transferring some of his energy to the flag. And then there's nothing to stop that flag waving. Gravity is still pulling it down. That's why something's floating off into space. Sounds like you in science to me. Here's another... It's actual science. Hold on, before we share a screen there, Dustin, just hold on. Let's let Ozean in here. Well, he's already sharing the screen, so it's fucking...  Oh, okay. There, go ahead there. This is what a flag waving looks like. Which is exactly what we just saw. No, it was not at all what you just saw. This is what we just saw. The flag is still not moving. It's waving. It's waving. No, it's still... Inertia does not explain that. It's still in a ripple? What is inertia? What is inertia, Dustin? Inertia is not this. What is it? Well, I guess if you're trying to define it, it would be the momentum that continues after release. I'm not sure of the official definition. Okay, so it's a maintainable. It's a maintenance of momentum, right? Sure. So if something's stuck into the ground, it's going to have that momentum, the force when it goes in the ground. So it's going to swing, and then when it reaches a point, it's going to swing back, and the thing stops swinging. You showed a part of the video where the thing was not... Where the flag was not moving at all because it's lost the momentum. You did, in the video, you actually stopped it there first and you moved ahead, jumped ahead. So you think you're trying to pull it on because the first point, the first part you stopped out to play it, they were walking around and the flag wasn't waving. All right. I have a question. Yeah. If it was that easy for them to tap the flag in, why was there no crater, right, when however much pounds of metal landed on the move? We're changing the subject. Yeah. Right, okay. We're changing the subject. Well, first of all, that's okay. I said, look, I know it's rough, right? That's okay. Listen, I just want the audience to know, every time we make a point that they don't have to do, that's when Craig and I... No, I can't... No, I just... I need better video. I need better video. Ross, we can answer the question to the why there's no crater. I want to hear your answer, but he interrupted you for some reason. I didn't interrupt. I just pointed out that... I just pointed out that we're changing the subject instead of finishing the whole thing. Why did you point that out? Let's stop the meta. So we've already explained why the flag maintains momentum and it stopped. He showed it in the video, so... I disagree. No, I disagree. So you understand, we had the command service module, right? That was attacked to the lunar module. The lunar module detached, came down and landed. So there's no... The lunar module... I'm not sure how much it weighed. Do you remember how much the lunar module weighed, Craig? There was a car inside. Remember, there was a car inside that. There was a folded up little... Almost like a line... Yeah, it was folded up. Yeah, it was a folded up, almost like a lawn chair seat. So they have foot tracks. So their feet are strong enough to make imprints, but the weight of the thing is... Oh no, there was... Yeah, yeah, yeah. So it did leave tracks. They left the platform there. So when the lunar... If you look at the platform, when they landed, there's no sign of them using any kind of thrust or there's no sign... It looks like it was sat down perfectly by a crane. Literally, like a movie set. Would you like an answer? Of course. Okay, right. Give me a minute to give you an actual proper answer. I'm trying not to do it. You've been doing this whole debate in a row. I mean, I don't mind interjections if you want to ask questions because that's how conversations work. But, you know... Anyway, the absence of a crater beneath the lunar module of the Apollo mission is white landing on the Moon's surface with a rocket engine. Firing can be explained by several key factors related to the Moon's surface, the design of the lunar module and the physics of the landing process. Thrust distribution and descent speed. The LM was designed to slow its descent as it approached the Moon's surface, significantly reducing its speed for a soft landing. By the time it reached the surface, the thrust needed to counteract the Moon's weaker gravity. About one-sixth of Earth was relatively low. The engine of the LM was throttled down to less than 3,000 pounds of thrust as it, near touchdown, spread out over a wide area by the engine's bell-shaped nozzle. A wide area, meaning there was less force per area, less likely to leave marks. Nozzle design and altitude cutoff. The design of the LM's descent engine nozzle helped to spread the engine's exhaust gases over a wide area, reducing the concentration of force directed at the lunar surface. Furthermore, the engine was cut off at a height of about 1.5 meters above the surface to prevent a hard landing and to minimize the disturbance of lunar soil. The surface of the Moon, especially at the sites chosen for the Apollo landings, is covered by a layer of regolith, a fine powdery dust and small rock debris. This regolith layer absorbs and disperses the force of the exhaust gases without creating a large crater. The lunar's regolith's properties, including its lack of cohesion and moisture, allow it to behave differently from Earth's soil, making it less prone to be in displace than the manner that would create a visible crater. On Earth, rocket... It has to have been a minute. It has to have been a minute. Has it been a minute yet? Jesus Christ! I've got one more point. On Earth... The audience is about to fall asleep. I've got one more bit. You're falling asleep. Last second, Ross. I was going to say, you guys were... That made absolutely no sense. I've got one more bit. I've got one more bit. Guys, guys, guys. I've got one more bit. Please. On Earth, rocket engines can create craters or scorched areas beneath them due to the combination of atmospheric pressure and the ground's resistance. On the Moon, the lack of an atmosphere means the exhaust gases from the LM's engines would disperse more quickly into the vacuum of space, reducing the direct impact force on the surface beneath the spacecraft. There we go. That's why there was no marks underneath the lander and the story. Yeah, most of that didn't make any sense at all. Some of it kind of sounded like it made sense, but actually doesn't make any sense. I will concede that... It doesn't speak, guys. It's my turn, guys. You guys have all been talking forever. I will concede that I need a better... It doesn't mean it's not true. We're going to let... I can't wait till our next debate, Ozy, and I would love to see who understands more. So, basically, you know, I agree I need a better video of the Moon Wind, but that doesn't make it. It's fake. I mean, you can clearly see that it was billowing in a way that does not just... I mean, they had to have punched it repeatedly to get that kind of impact, not just set it down in the ground. However, I also want to talk about the witnesses you guys want to go to, historically speaking. What about Gus Grissom? Do you guys have any comments there? Let's talk about it. What about him? This is a NASA whistleblower who held an unauthorized press conference in which, in 1967, January 22nd, which he told the U.S. through reporters that we're at least a decade away from ever contemplating a lunar mission. He was rebuked for this and then blew up not too long later. Well, I guess he was wrong, wasn't he? We all know that. Oh, because he died. That means he's wrong. The government has never killed anybody to cover up a secret. They don't do that.  Oh, what? Why do you guys believe anything that these people say ever? I can't even fathom that. I can't fathom ever believing that anything the government ever says ever. Well, your incogenity is the relative to this. One minute for you, FTFE. Yeah, that's crazy. It's not an argument, but I'm just saying like, wow. Go ahead. Over to FTFE. I mean, I don't really have a response to that. One guy said one thing and was wrong. I mean, there we go. So appeals authority no longer works. Next minute will be for Ross. Again, I didn't say appeal to authority. This is just one person that said one thing and was clearly wrong because we went to the moon. So one person saying one thing and being wrong doesn't change the moon landings. That's a classic circular easing fallacy. And there was no fallacy there. How is that a fallacy? 30 seconds. So we'll give it to Ozzy. He must have been wrong because we went to the moon. How do you know we went to what? Oh, we've already given all the evidence. We're not just speaking English in England. You gave no evidence. Okay, it's guys. No, we haven't lost anything. 30 seconds. Secondly, it was a prediction about a future event that he was wrong about. So it's not it's you're not appealing to an authority about that new about landing on a moon. You appeal to an authority that was making a prediction about our ability to land on the moon in the future. And his prediction was wrong. People get predictions wrong. That is that is not a fallacy to appeal to him for a prediction. And it's not a fallacy to reject it when we know that we actually landed on the moon. I'll bounce back a second, but I did say I give it to you while Ross after this. So and when I started talking, Craig interrupted me right away, you know, because he knew I was about to speak that hot. Let's try not to do any meta. Let's focus there. The reason why it's circular reasoning is because the event you're saying he was wrong about is the event in question. Okay. I want everybody out there that has critical thinking to understand what I'm saying. Okay. The event in question is when that he is invoking to say that that guy was obviously wrong. That if you look in the dictionary, you're going to see Craig's face in there under circular reasoning. All right. You don't have circular reasoning. Are you the rest of my time to dust in? Are you the rest of my time to dust in? All right. We'll give you a... Okay. I'd like to respond to that first as I was directing. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. But I'm not done. I'm not done. I'm not done. I'm not done. It's just this one. After. As that was directly... Still my time. I would like to... No, you're not... My time is still there though. All right. Just one second there. Just hold your thought. Uncivilize the arrow with it. Uncivilize. All right. It is Dustin. We're going to give him the last 20 seconds of your time here, and then we'll give it to you for the minute there at FTFE. So just hold your thought. Go ahead there, Dustin. You got 20 seconds. Well, now we're up to just two people, not just one person. But this one is from 2015, who says we can only fly in Earth orbit. That is the furthest we can go from Terry Virks. With the current technology, yeah. No, that's 2015, way after the supposed... Yeah, because we didn't have the moon and the technology anymore. In 2015, we didn't have that technology because it was... We didn't use it anymore. And we hadn't yet built the new technology. So in 2015, yes, at that point with the technology that existed in 2015, we could only go to lower orbit. That does not disprove that we went to the moon in 2016. Oh, boy. So, yeah. Because they destroyed it. So that time there, Dustin. Because they destroyed the moon landing technology. That is hilarious what you just said. Right. But how many times... I wish when I mentioned... I now get to respond to the thing that was said to me, right? This is what they destroyed. I now get to respond to the thing that was said to me, right? Probably destroy it itself, by the... I told him that he'd feel his response and just hold on there, guys. So I know you're excited to keep on continuing on, but we got to try to keep things fair here. So another minute on the other side there. So go ahead. Right. Yeah. I've kind of even forgotten the point now. I think if someone says something directly to someone, they should get the chance to respond before someone else gets time if that's okay. Because otherwise, the conversation is very disjointed. What was it that Ross was saying? Now he's mad about interjections. No interjections now, huh, Craig? No, that's not what I said. I said that before someone else gets a chance to... Yeah. Anyway, right. No, Ross is mad at it. Let me... Hold on. Hold on. Please, give me a sec. Yeah, give me a sec. Right. So, yeah, what Ross was saying was just completely wrong. That's not, you know, a circular reasoning because we provided evidence that we went to the Moon and we've got millions more sources that say we went to the Moon than the one source that said that we were a far away from doing it. And anyway, again, they didn't say that we didn't go to the Moon. It's just that one guy making a prediction. So anyway, and also, Ross, dictionaries do not have things like circular reasoning. Dictionaries have words, not like sentences. Just maybe you've never seen the dictionary. I'm not sure because you've got what a dictionary was completely wrong there. And in response to what Dustin was saying... I've completely forgotten what Dustin was saying now because I was trying to remember two points at once. Yeah, you go for Dustin. Okay, if you want to, yeah. Dustin was saying there were... Yeah, Dustin was talking about there were two testimonies that refuted the Moon landing. Neither of them refuted the Moon landing. One was about a future prediction. One was about current equipment that we had.  Technology implies that we don't have the knowledge to me. We had the knowledge to go to the Moon. We just didn't have the equipment because we went to the Moon in 1969. We landed a lunar module, a private company landed a lunar module on the Moon two days ago. So because we didn't have equipment that could go to beyond low Earth orbit in 2015, doesn't mean we didn't have the capability to go to the Moon in 2015. We just would have to build up the infrastructure to do so like we did. Neither of those people testified that we did not go to the Moon in 1969. Did they, Dustin? He answered that question. Did they testify we didn't go to the Moon? Did either of them testify we didn't go to the Moon, Dustin? We're just destroying NASA's credibility every statement that I get. Can you answer the question? Again and again and again, we destroy NASA's credibility. Can you answer that question? Are you having a different conversation, Dustin? Let him go. We just let you guys go. Come on, let him go. Is it my turn? We'll give you one full minute. If you feel like he doesn't answer the question, you know, we can... Tell him after, yeah. Tell him after. Okay, so... Not on a synagogue. First of all, my answer to the question is no, they didn't say that in those exact words, but they did say it through their actions and their testimony. If you read between the lines and understand what they were implying. Also, we have destroyed NASA's credibility every step of the way. They are completely and wholly without credibility. By the way, this is the technology that they claim to have destroyed, filled with missing bolts and bent aluminum foil or whatever the hell that's built out of. And it's supposedly lasted through 35,000 degrees Fahrenheit. This is by the way... My turn, my turn, my turn, my turn. My turn. We're not getting a single chance to cross-examine them at all. My turn. My turn. All right, Ernie. Supposedly... I reserve my time. You still got 20 seconds. All right. The Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System is a max 3000 Fahrenheit. The reinforced carbon melts at around 4,200 Celsius. So there's no way that this thing would have survived. I'd really like to respond to this one point, please. Fahrenheit. Okay. So let me respond to this one point, please. Right. So Dustin, I quite often go to the gym and after the gym, I go to a steam room. Right? Now, my question to you is, how hot is steam? I do not. I don't know the steam boiling point off the top of my head. Well, what is water's boiling point? I don't know. It's centigrade. It's 100 degrees centigrade, right? I got a wife. Steam. I don't know the steam. Steam is 100 degrees centigrade, right? Now, can the human body survive in a pot of water that's 100 degrees centigrade? Or would you end up getting extreme burns? The answer is you would end up getting extreme burns. However, I can go into a steam room full of steam that is 100 degrees centigrade plus and not get scalded. The reason for that is there is not enough of the matter that is 100 degrees centigrade plus to transfer that heat energy to me. The same thing applies for the equipment in space. It is up there. Yes, there is temperatures that are that high, but there is not anything to transfer that heat energy to do the thing that you are saying would need to do to melt it. Incorrect. Incorrect. Aluminum is actually a very efficient medium of exchange of energy. And by the way, there's no water that will survive at 35,000 degrees Fahrenheit.  That didn't respond to my question.  Hold on. You didn't actually respond to the same wrap. 100 is not 35,000. Wrap a big container of aluminum foil and cook it to see what happens. You completely missed the point, okay? In space... I thought that was a decent point, but it's just not 35,000, though. That's completely ludicrous. Ross, hold chill out. My point is that in space, there is not the matter that is 35,000 degrees to transfer that heat energy. Like, to have the heat energy transferred to you, it needs to have physical contact, right? It is accepted for the radiation, which is a different thing. So for the 35,000... I'm still talking. For the 35,000 degrees temperature to be transferred, there needs to be a medium to transfer that heat energy. So the same way that I can survive in a steam room, where the temperature of the medium is over 100 degrees centigrade, that can survive in space because the medium is so thin. Because that's about 300 degrees. The medium is so thin. 300 degrees back in the steam room? Again, you are missing the point. That makes no sense. You are missing the point. Let's wrap up last time. You would boil in that kind of steam. Last 10 seconds to FTFS. You are missing the point. How long can you stay in the steam room at 100? Come on. Forever? Forever? Forever? How long? You are missing the point. I can survive in a steam room for hours with the steam, but I couldn't survive in a pot of boiling water for seconds because the medium does not have enough of it to transfer the heat energy. The problem is you do not understand physics. All right, we're in the problem. You don't understand cooking. It's a happiness in point. I guess, but it doesn't really apply to what we're talking about. All right, listen, you don't understand cooking because if you were to try to do that, it wouldn't make any sense. First of all, if you were to have that kind of steam, you would cook faster than boiling water. In fact, it would be an almost instant cook. You would be scalded into oblivion, basically, with 35,000 degrees, which would have already destroyed all of the water and evaporated it anyway. However, you do have a medium of exchange. You do have a very efficient medium of exchange with aluminum again. So the radiation is there. The temperature is there. It doesn't have to hide away from you until something touches you and touches it at the same time. It's not electricity. It's radiant energy. So it can reach you anywhere you're at, all the time, everywhere, just like light. This is why I said you guys wanted to believe they defied the laws of physics. When I read this one... There's no physics, they delight. You can't say they denied the laws of physics. There's no physics, they delight. As fun as I want you guys to interact. One minute for yours, Ian. Okay, we're going to sit here in silence for one minute. What? You said you wanted the next one. Dustin, Dustin, Dustin.  Radiant heat? Okay, radiant heat. You don't understand radiant heat, first of all. So it doesn't... It's not going to heat up the aluminum like you think it is. So when we went through the Van Elen belt, the risk going through the Van Elen belt was ionized radiation. It was not the temperature from the sun going through the Van Elen belt. First of all, we... You know how we mitigate risk going through the Van Elen belt? I'll show you. Shielding. You know what blocks beta... I know it's sort of small. You know what blocks beta radiation? Aluminum. You know what produces beta radiation? Do you know what produces beta radiation? Do you? It's electrons, ionized electrons.  Paper. You know what they use for insulation? They use this mesh, this rigid mesh that blocks alpha particles. If you would use something other than aluminum for the shielding, like lead or something like that, I'm going to go longer because you've muted me and let me speak. If they use something like lead, they would have produced something like x-rays, which would actually cause more damage. Because you don't understand about radiation or convection or heat transport. You don't even know. You don't understand the boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celsius and 212 degrees Fahrenheit. Five seconds. What is the melting point of aluminum? That all worked out. Oh, you don't know? Oh, you don't even understand that? Okay, well, I guess you forgot something, too, like me. So it's actually 1221 degrees Fahrenheit and under 35,000 degrees Fahrenheit. It's 1221 degrees Fahrenheit. So less than 2,000 in a place of 35,000. So it wouldn't take very long to heat up. And we're not just talking about different types of ionic radiation that could penetrate and be shielded. We're talking about a temperature of 35,000 Fahrenheit. And it would melt aluminum and it would transfer through aluminum and then water wouldn't protect you and you would be gone in seconds. And steam would scald you and cook you faster. If you know how to cook, you would know that you can steam vegetables like broccoli much faster than you can cook them in other ways. It's a highly efficient way of cooking, especially vegetables or people in a tin or in this case aluminum. Aluminum can. There's no water in space for steam. You still have 35,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Again, you don't that. Again, you do medium to transfer that heat. There's no medium. You don't need a medium. It's everywhere. It's the whole Van Alen radiation belt. They tested it. The fake science, according to the governments, all agree that the Van Alen radiation belt gets up to 35,000. By the way, the one that came up with that one was one of the original people working on the Apollo mission. Right. So the statement that space is 36,000 degrees is a misconception. In reality, the concept of temperature in the vacuum of space doesn't apply in the way that it does in environments containing matter. No, we're in a lot of peace positions there. A lot of peace positions there. I'm in the middle of talking. So let me. I know, I know. I heard you. So space itself is closely a vacuum, which means it has no atmosphere, no air, and no matter in the vast majority of this volume about matter. There are no molecules or atoms to have kinetic energy that would manifest as temperature in the way we understand it on Earth. The 36,000 degrees is not being transferred to the material because there is no medium to do that. OK, can I think about this? Really quick, simple, really quick. I'm just going to talk for 30 seconds. Just 30 seconds, all right. I just want to start off. Just bounce back. Look, number one, that's my name, Ryan. You're doing a good job, man. All right, you're doing a good job. And I want everybody. I had to place everybody on a lot of mutes here. Yeah, yeah, you're doing a good job. I want everybody, I want everybody in the audience to recognize that when I said that my opening rings true. I said, we're going to have a lot of conversation about whether or not this is even possible. We're not going to be talking about proof that it actually happened. Think about it, because you don't have any proof that it actually happened. Think about all this. This is the net above. It would be possible this. It would be, we don't have to discuss it's possible if you have the real proof. If you had the proof, this wouldn't even be an argument. Go ahead. I was trying to look for a thermos. So if anybody's had a coffee cup with a vacuum copy cup, that vacuum later, it blocks heat from transferring from the inner side of the cup to the outer side of the cup. But you know there's a presupposition that space is a vacuum, though. Vacuum. If somebody doesn't... Well, they don't appeal to the Van Allen belt because appealing to the Van Allen belt is appealing to a vacuum. Appealing to the... That's a hostile witness. That's a hostile witness, basically. Then you have to appeal to the whole claim. You can't just cherry pick what you're appealing to with the plane. That's fallacious. That's fallacious. No, it's not fallacious. Your argument's fallacious because cherry picking is a fallacious argument. When you're appealing to the whatever 36,000 Kelvin, and I read it was 2,000 to 20,000 Kelvin based upon the ionized radiation, which we had shielding for, which was the aluminum and paper sheet... Well, not paper. It was insulation. I want you to know from my perspective, it sounds like you're just saying that. My bad. It sounds like you're just saying that. I don't know that that's true. Go ahead, Dustin. If it doesn't... You don't know how to copy cup words, like a vacuum copy cup words? Like it blocks heat. Why would they need the shielding if there's nothing that can touch the aluminum? To stop the astronauts having radiation? But it can't touch them because nothing bridges them, right? According to your logic. According to what you just said. Radiation can still damage cells. Radiation can still harm people. It can't touch them. There's no steam. There's no steam. There's no medium of exchange. No one's saying that radiation can't touch people. That's a... Well, you're saying it can't. You're saying that it can't touch the ship. No, I'm saying it can't transfer the heat energy. But it... That's not how it works. Then how could it burn them? Because it does different things. It's not the heat that would affect them. It would be the actual damage to their DNA. 35... The 35,000 degrees Fahrenheit would not affect them. Again, right, right, right. Got it. Can I please have two minutes to just talk through some science? No, no, not two minutes. Hell no. Some science. No, I would like two minutes. I'm asking the moderator. I'm asking the moderator for one minute. With all the objections. I will keep it fair at one minute. I want two minutes as well, then. No one minute after. I'm having one minute to talk through the science. All right. And if there was a response, I would like the response to be specifically to the things that I have said. All right. So the Van Allen radiation belts are regions of space surrounding Earth filled with high-energy particles trapped by Earth's magnetic field. The concept of temperature as it applies to these belts is not straightforward because temperature typically refers to kinetic energy of particles in a material. The particles in the Van Allen belts are moving at high speeds, which could be equated to very high temperatures, if one were to convert the kinetic energy of these particles into an equivalent temperature value. However, it's more a measure of particle energy than temperature and thermal space. The concept of temperature being 36,000 degrees in the concept of Van Allen belts likely stems from misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the energy levels of the particles within the belts. The belts do not contain particles with very high energies, and that these energies were to be analogously related to thermal temperatures. The figures could be extremely high. However, this doesn't mean the belts themselves are a thermal temperature of 36,000 degrees in the way we would understand the temperature of object and environment on Earth. There is more that I would like to explain, but I only had one minute. First, defying the laws of physics. A lot of assumptions in there, buddy. No, that is the laws of physics. A lot of assumptions in there, buddy. That is physics. At one minute. So... No, no, it's not. Just because you say that. That was physics. My theory of physics disagrees with you. There's no proof at all that a human would be able to go through what you're saying and have no effect because... We've done it. We've actually done it. So... Oh, really? I've got to be fair. Oh, really? Oh, so, yeah. Let's not do that. No, it doesn't. All right, go ahead, Dustin. Yeah, let's not do that, though, Ross, please. I heard a fun word called vacuum that brought me to this. You can't actually have space because it's a lie. And if you had a space without a bubble shielding our atmosphere, it would float off into space. You did this to yourself, Ozean. You gave them the alley-oop. You did it. Yeah, I can go anywhere with it now. I just don't need a... I just don't need a screen share to show me a friggin' vacuum container. You can just talk. It's a debate. I want to explain it to all of the people who are seeing how full of it is. Are you being screen-shared, too, though? This is a straw man. You do understand how this is a straw man, right? No, it's not a straw man. This is called the science. No, no, this is a straw man. No, no, no. He said it wouldn't affect them because of the vacuum. So he's saying, we don't believe in a vacuum. This is why. So that vacuum excuse is out the door. It's not a straw man. He's... But what he said on the screen what you've got on the screen is a straw man of our clean. No, it's an infinite space vacuum without a shield. With pressurized gases inside. Yeah, that's a straw man of our clean. How so? We'll give that to him. We're going to give that to the last 15 seconds here to finish this. Dustin, ask me how it's a straw man. 15 seconds break. Let's just say, let me go. Dustin, just ask me a question. Then let me finish my 15 seconds and then you can respond. First of all, explain how it's a straw man and secondly, show me anywhere where you can have a gas pressure or vacuum without a container or barrier like the firmament which God says we have. Yeah, so we don't have gas pressure next to a vacuum. That is a straw man of the claim. We simply have a pressure gradient going from 14.7 psi up to very, very close to zero. That pressure gradient is... That's it. All of the pressure in the universe is contained within the universe. Gravity creates that pressure gradient. It's as simple as that. We don't say that space is a vacuum. Space is a very low pressure. What you've just did was straw man the globe claim plus you ignored the things that I said about thermal transfer in a region, the void of matter. So thank you for ignoring what I said. So can I respond? By the way, after Craig's response, you know what should have been said? Thus define the laws of physics. Let's just... Let's just... Let's roast him. Real quick. No, no, no. I need 20 seconds. I need 20 seconds. You want me to get this? That's the final laws of physics we're tonight. All right, go ahead. No laws of physics we're tonight. You are lying about no laws of physics we're tonight. As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, I need about 30 seconds here. This is in essence saying because there's different levels of nothing in between our gases and the vacuum of space in which you've claimed there is nothing before because nothing was there to exchange the heat and roast everyone inside of the aluminum can. So there was nothing there before, but now there's something there in order to hold in the gases which are obviously just blow off into space at the speeds that we're going, which are full of 666s, by the way, all these miles per hour and et cetera. There's no 666s. Yes, there is. No, there isn't. There's not one single 666. By the way, I'm not on the religious side. I just want to see that in the record. I'm also with Ozean. I don't want to make this a religious conversation. I just want to talk about history. Is it true or is it not true?  Let's not let it go. Go ahead and answer that, and then I'm going to show you the 666. Yeah. So vacuum's not empty though. Vacuum has energy and radiation, fields, it just is. But in response to what he said specifically, though, gravity is what is causing the pressure gradient. So we know that gravity exists. There's an empirical verified thing that it is. No, it isn't. That is absolutely false. That is not right. Gravity doesn't exist. That's definitely false. This is a different conversation. That's definitely false. This is a different conversation. This is a different conversation. All right, we'll have their time, Ross. We'll get there. I have personally measured gravity. This is why we can't get there. That's why we can't have a debate right there. I have personally measured gravity. It is an empirically verified fact of reality. And to ignore gravity is also to strawman what we are saying. So your whole nonsense there about gas next to a vacuum is a strawman. Gravity is the answer. If you want to see another example of a gas contained by gravity, Saturn, Jupiter, there you go, done. You said to ignore gravity is a strawman. How does that make sense? To ignore gravity is a strawman of our position. Do you know what words mean? You still need a physical barrier because you do. No, you don't. Gravity is debunked. However, you do not.  Absolutely.  No, a hundred times over. Why do you need a physical barrier? I don't even know 45 seconds. We'll give them 45 seconds. Why do you need a physical barrier? Why do you need a physical barrier? Why? Because you absolutely need a physical barrier or a seal to create a vacuum every single time. Prove otherwise. It's in the definition of gas pressure. OK. The definition of gas pressure has a barrier in the name. He just asked him a question. No, the definition of gas pressure does not have a barrier in the name, Ross. But I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Dustin. So no, there's no physical barrier needed for a pressure gradient to exist. There is no. No, there's no physical barrier for pressure gradient to exist. Please show me the physical barrier between the summit and the base of Everest, which has a greater pressure differential than the summit of Everest and space. Well, he's saying it's the container. That's what the question. There's a barrier in place. There's a firmament, a barrier that holds our atmosphere in place. That's what we're talking about. You're imagining space and claiming that we can go there and saying that our air cannot go there because there's a thing you call gravity, which Newton, by the way, laughed at and did not even want to associate with his name. All right, let's see how he did. Why is Dustin? You guys don't know your history. This is why I love this conversation. You don't know your history. Guys, we're giving Ozi on the floor. Come on. Just one second. He's trying to get... Ross, get less triggered, dude. We've been letting you three kind of stew off each other for a bit. Ozi has got a thought. So let's let him in here. Hopefully you didn't lose it. I know exactly what I want to see. Why is there a pressure gradient, Dustin? You're the one trying to say there's a pressure gradient. I'm not. There is a pressure gradient. It's measurable. There is no pressure gradient because there is no vacuum without a seal. Are you saying... Wait, Paul. You're saying it's 14.7 psi from the surface of the earth. Wait, let me finish the question. Are you saying it's 14.7 psi at the surface of the earth to the top of Mount Everest that people to go to the top of Mount Everest don't need oxygen mass and stuff like that? You're saying there's not low pressure compared to the bottom of Mount Everest? Is that what you're saying? You can try out different gases in a jar and they'll sink to heaviest, densest, lowest and lightest, highest, but they're still in a jar, Ozi. Is there a pressure gradient from the bottom of Mount Everest to the top of Mount Everest? No, there's a density of heavier gases sinking. What's a pressure gradient? Is there a change in the pressure? Heavier gas to sink. Can you take a barometer? I think you guys are saying the same thing. Different gases are different pressures. He's saying that there's heavier gases that are sinking, but there's not. The mixture of gases is the same regardless of the same regardless of the altitude. The only difference is the pressure of those gases. You go up to 100 feet, there is still the same amount of oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide percentage-wise as there is at sea level. Yes, it is true. Every kid with little balloons that flow up out of their hands and they lose it, understand this. That's buoyancy and density or how gases work, and that is explained with a vacuum and in a jar. There is no such thing as space without a vacuum. And a pressure gradient, and the balloon only goes up so far once it- Hits the firmament. No, no, no. Usually what happens is the balloon expands too much and pops. They're not strong enough. Little balloons kids make can't go to space, dude. Like, I don't know what you're talking about. He's not saying they go to space. We're talking about gases. We don't believe that space is there. So you think you can fly- Because the balloons can't go up as high as airplanes fly.  So you can fly up to the permanent, Dustin? Can I please share my screen one second? Is it okay if I share my screen a second? I don't think you have too much, so go for it. Can we get back to seeing some proof that they went- Don't I just- I walked on the balloon. I haven't seen one piece of proof that they walked on the balloon. Oh, I showed. I showed. They've been on the difference since the beginning. Not a movie. Yeah, not a movie. I don't want to see a movie. I'm sharing my screen. If I could just share my screen for a second, if that's okay. We'll give you a minute. Yeah, I'm sharing my screen. Right. This is Mr. Sensible's Mage 2 project, right, which goes up to space. And, oh, look, this is just the right point, actually, because right here, what you see if you're looking up at the balloon on the left is how it pops, right? Oh, look, where is the firmament that it hit? I just want to play that again, just so we can double-check that if there is a firmament that it hit there, if everyone could just look for me and just check for the firmament whilst we're playing that. It's the same place dark matter is. So, firmament, right? Anyone see the firmament there? Just like dark matter. Oh, right. Hold on, let me just check again. That's all you have to say.  I can show you the firmament again. All right, go on and point out exactly here, in this video, where the firmament is. I'm not going to show it with your video, but I have videos I can show it to you. But this is in space. Should it be there? Yeah. You said that it goes up until the balloon touches the firmament. Not necessarily. What we're watching. There we go. Exactly 21 minutes in this video. It could have been higher than that. Why did it pop? Yeah, this is 36,000 meters. Dustin, why did it pop? I have other images, if you'd like. Obviously, that's a fisheye lens. Dustin, why did the balloon pop? No. The one on the top left and the top right are, but the one in the middle is not fisheye, and you still see the curve of the earth with that. I still, by the way, it's my curve of the earth. No, it's not mine. Yeah, by the way, I still want to give you this thing. My point is, my point is there is. Actually, just like this. My point is, by the way, there is zip. My point is that there was no firmament because there is no firmament. And if you want to see the curve of the earth, that is very, very easy because that video shows the curve of the earth. Why did the balloon pop? They always use fisheye lenses. Secondly, again, the one in the middle didn't have a fisheye lens. Do I get a time to talk? Let's give you. Yeah, don't lie. They're what the one in the middle wasn't a fisheye lens. In the audience, no proof of the moon landing yet. Continue. I'm enjoying. We gave proof of the moon landing at the start. No, you gave one second, guys. We should get the Q&A here soon. So I will give you another, we'll do 45, 45 on both sides here. I haven't gotten one yet here. They've been talking a while. I yield. I yield my whole time. First of all, if you, the earth is allegedly tilted at 23.4 degrees off of the center of a 90-degree angle, if you subtract that 66.6, and there's other examples as well. It's actually 23, but it's actually 24.3. It's not what you said. We still got 20 seconds over here. Anyway, in essence, you guys are just going back and forth here, but fisheye lenses always show the curve. In fact, mythbusters got busted trying to fake with a fisheye lens. And if you go watch the video, they got caught because the ground level was as round as at the height of their flight. Because they were using a fisheye lens, and that's what it does. I've been up in dozens of aircraft myself, and I've seen it always flat. It rises to the horizon. But in essence, all they have is fisheye lens, and that's why you always see a curve in their nonsense at ground level as well as flight. How do we devolve into this? Just want to point out this is not fisheye lens. Can I share a screen? Because he said he made a claim about the axial tilt of the Earth. He's wrong. It's 23.5 degrees. Yeah, if you guys want to keep going, like we can give it another like, say 10 minutes before we go to Q&A. So it is 23.5 degrees, not 23. whatever you said. So that's a lie.  This is flat Earth rounding, I guess. Not according to NASA. Well, according to NASA, it's 23.3, actually. Then they've changed it because 23.4 is what they wrote on. Okay, let me show you on climate.nasa.gov. If you don't mind. I don't know if I ever got a chance at that. Here's National Geographic Society, 23.5. Can I? And NASA's own website, if you guys trust them. I don't personally. Well, we're given the Florida Ozean right now. So he's said, like I said, either way, you're wrong. So you're just cherry picking a point. Yes. There's no source, bro. And that's still not. No, that's not my source. It's your source, NASA. 20 seconds. I have NASA.gov saying 23.4 right now. It was not my source. You didn't understand my argument. That's not my problem. You're lying about numbers.  This is. You just lied. All right. All right. All right. All right. Can I ask Ozean that question? All right. It said 23.5. I have a question. I have a question. One last question. It said 23.5. I did not lie. NASA said 23.4. All right.  All right. Ozean, I have a question. All right. So yeah, if I'm not mistaken, the moon is moving like, what is it? 2,000 miles per hour? 6,000 miles per hour? I don't know. The Earth is moving like what? 35,000 miles per hour? Something like that. Okay. So I want to know, right? In your guys' opinion, how did that flimsy machine that you showed us catch up to a rock that is moving 2,000 miles per hour? And then when they came back, like I said, I don't want to bring up the fluid because that looks fake. When they came back, the Earth is moving however fast you guys say it's moving. How in the hell they navigate from a rock that's moving to however, and then make it to another rock that's moving 35,000 miles? My numbers are probably wrong, so go ahead, Ozean, correct me. But whatever the numbers are, right, how is it possible that they in that ship that you showed us made it to a rock that's moving 35,000 miles an hour? Or however fast you guys say it's moving, huh? Laws of motion, dude. Laws of motion. You're going to have to just break that down for me. What does that mean? You maintain your, okay. So if you throw a ball, if you throw a ball, it maintains its momentum until it's acted upon by equal or opposite force. In our view, let me finish. In our view, when we launch a rocket to space, right, the forces acting upon the rocket aren't going to be the friction of the atmosphere because there's no, as far as we're concerned, there's no matter between the Earth and the Moon, okay? So there's nothing obstructing it to offer any type of friction. We're going to have to overcome some type of gravitational forces and stuff like that. But how do they pick up the speed on the way back? So we maintain our momentum with the Earth. So the Earth is, so we maintain- No, no, no, from the Moon. No, the Moon. The Moon is moving with the Earth. We maintain the momentum with the Moon when we leave the Moon. So we don't lose any of those speeds when we leave the Moon. The only thing we have to do is to make adjustments to make the minimal amount of changes to get from the differences from the Moon to the Earth. Question. I could probably explain it a lot better. Yeah. What they actually did. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Let me try to find explanation. Let me just find what he said, though. I just wanted to clarify, because the Earth is moving from whatever spot it's in. So once they leave the Moon's orbit, the Earth is still speeding through space, right? It's very simple. What? You're right. This defies a lot. What they did was what they did was what they did was they ate when they left the Earth, right? Again, the Earth and the Moon are moving together, but the Moon's obviously orbiting the Earth. When they left the Earth, they aim for the point and get this where the Moon was going to be. And then when they left the Moon to come back to the Earth, they aimed for the point where the Earth was going to be. But they weren't moving fast enough coming back. That's all I'm saying. They weren't moving. Again, the Earth and the Moon are moving together. So when the rocket leaves the Moon, it's still going that speed. It doesn't stop going that speed. How fast is the Moon moving? Hold on. I'm sorry. The Moon is moving the same speed as the Earth. It is. Yes. So they're moving together. And then you've obviously got the Earth's orbit, which is why all they had to do was aim for the point where the Moon was going to be. And then coming back, aim for the point where the Earth was going to be. It's called orbital mechanics. Oh, really? Yes. There's no assumptions involved in that, right? Let's see.  It's easier to assume that they made it.  Which one requires the least assumptions? No. Yeah, all more. I'll take the movie for $300. There's no assumptions there. There's no assumptions. No assumptions. All the assumptions? No. Because so when we do mathematical equations, we don't reinvent the wheel every time when we calculate these motions. But we have explanation for all these celestial motions. There's no assumptions in the model. But your explanations don't make sense to us. Ozean? One second, sir. Yes. Because you don't understand. Does it mean it's over? I didn't say I don't understand them. No, no. I understand them. I'm saying they don't make sense. Two different things. They just have to jump down there, Dustin. My bad, Dustin. My bad, Dustin. I yielded Dustin. You're good. You're good. I do have questions about what you guys are saying here. I mean, I've got a couple of questions. Many questions. For Deval, though, do you guys claim there is something in space or not because you keep flip-flopping? When it comes to heat exchange, nothing is there. But when it comes to gas pressure gradients, apparently without a vacuum or seal, you believe that there is something there. So what's going on with that? Let me clarify for you. Space is not a vacuum. Space is an extremely low pressure area with very, very, very, very little amounts of matter. OK? Very little amounts of matter. Like when you're in a space in between the Earth and the Moon, there's probably one hydrogen atom every five cubic meters. All right? So space, as we are told, is not an absolute vacuum. It is a extreme low pressure area. But there is pressure, so therefore 35,000 degrees Fahrenheit would still work. Not enough, though. No, there's not enough to do that. All right. Again, as I said, roughly one hydrogen model, one hydrogen atom every five cubic meters. That is not enough to transfer thermal energy. OK. So here's another. Here's a vacuum. Don't you agree? A vacuum works very good as a thermal insulator, right? Yeah. Like you use thermoses, right? Yeah, it depends on your insulation. But you do agree, like just a normal. No, if you put an air bubble, if you put an air bubble of warm air outside and cold weather is gone. Just a normal, a vacuum thermos you agree vacuum thermoses work very well to insulate your coffee. They're insulated and they're sealed and panels are not unadjusted with one another. But you do agree a vacuum thermos works better than a non-vacuum thermos? Because it has a vacuum seal. Yes. Yes. So location. You got it, Ozean. So it's not a pure vacuum in there. It's a low pressure, very, very low pressure environment in the cup. So that's all we're describing. It's actually a lower pressure and space in the cup. So there's less options for heat to conduct and conduct through the space. There's no way for the heat. The way heat transfers is through infrared, through radiation, through stuff like that. It doesn't transfer. Infrared travels at the speed of light. Yes. It is in GMF. I don't know. Sorry about that. So there's another one. OK, so I don't agree with any of that. I think it sounds like nonsense to me. But if you go to Google Images and pull up photos of the Earth on Google Images without any exception, they're all CGI or paintings. That is an unsubstantiated plane.  That's not the truth. Unsubstantiated. OK. Then I will substantiate it if you like. Here we go. I will substantiate it right now. We're going to put a real one. We're going to put a real one.  Which of these are real? All right. Right now, I will bet you 5,000 pounds that if you go to Google and search for photos of Earth, they are not all CGI or photos. Really? I'll take their bit. I will bet you 5,000 pounds. I don't need to bet money. I'll take the bit. Ross, I'm still talking. I'm still talking. I will bet you 5,000 pounds. Come on, my five grand. I will bet you 5,000 pounds that one of the pictures came from a Hasselblad camera. No. That's just more fake stuff that has no star showing or any of that stuff. So you're basically just trying to use the fake images from NASA to say that it's real. And all of that stuff is fake. They have... Here's an example. They give you... OK, here's which one of these is real. They're all official. All of them are real. All of them are real. Yeah? Really? Oh, my God! Yeah? Do you want to bet to Losean? Do you want to get in on his action? Right. I'm taking all the action on his bet. Let me. Let me. Let me. All of them are real. Let me. Ross, come down. Ross, come down. Ross, come down. Dustin, all of them are real. Mark, man. And all of them are taken. Right. Ross, calm down. Dustin, all of them are real. And all of them are taken by different cameras for different reasons. Simple. You don't look exactly the same in every picture of you that's ever taken. They cannot all be real. Why not? Why? I'm looking for the more close-up version, but they have drastically different sizes of continents, for example. OK, right. Let me speak. Also, they say sex. They say sex in the clouds in a number of them. No, they don't say sex. Yes, they do. Yes, they do. No, it's in the clouds. It's quite clear. OK, so let me just respond quickly to that, the different size continent. You stopped sharing.  I can show right here. Look, it's going to bigger. It's going to bigger. It's going to bigger. The continent's going to bigger. Here we go. Yeah. So the marbles were the same size, but the continents were different sizes. Right. Why would the marbles be the same size, though? Perspective. Quiet for one second. Hold on. One second. Right. Dustin, I would like you to look at my screen. OK. Do you see my screen? Not really. We see it. We see it. Right. I see it's a bit tiny. Well, click on it and make it larger. OK. Right. You see that what's there. OK. Right. You see the two globes. OK. I see. Here's the thing. Globes. That is one globe. That's not two globes. That is one globe taken by a friend of mine, Tommy Guarnaville. It's his globe in his front room. And the only thing there that's different is the camera distance and the lens on the camera. So my question to you is where did the rest of the earth go on the left picture? You have to hear him move it to me because I asked. So first of all, if the globe is the same size, then the continents should be the same size in the world. But it is the same globe. It's exactly the same globe. He's saying it's a different lens. So again, I want you to tell me where the rest of the globe went on the left one. I can do it right now, Craig. Let me do it right now. I got a globe right here. I got a camera right here. All right. Go on. If you're going to do something on the screen, I'm going to make it bigger. Yeah. Hold on. Oh, no. I'll share a screen if you want me to. If you've got a if you share your like a virtual camera or something. Well, I can't. Why are all of it? It means a bit. Oh, I don't do that. Anyway, this response to what he's saying about the different size continents is just an effect of where the camera is in relation to you. Taking the picture. A closer satellite is orbiting the earth. We'll get a picture more like the left. A satellite to serve away from the earth. We'll get a picture like the right symbol. That doesn't make any sense. I have a question for Craig. I have a question for Craig. It doesn't make any sense because it would be obviously the ball would be bigger as you get closer. So what you're saying that this is a fake picture I'm showing you because it's actually taken by someone that I know personally. I don't know the lie. But yes, it may well be. Well, it's not though. You see my globe right here? I can respond to this. You see my globe? OK, see South Africa, right? It's South America, right? As I get closer, as it gets closer. And it's coming up more of the screen, though. And now it's doubled. It's doubled in perspective size. That must be what you did was you just cropped it, right? Right. Well, of course, you have to crop it. All pictures are cropped. You can still see both sides of the globe, but it's getting up more at the globe. So first of all, here's what you did. Look, look, look, look. You can see more ocean on both sides as it goes further away. Here's what you did. Watch carefully. Here's what you did. Watch mine. Watch carefully. Watch carefully. You know, you're proving me right. You don't know what you're doing. You're proving me right. Disproving you. Right. You're proving me right. The ocean's getting smaller at both sides. You don't understand it. You're proving me right. In what way have we proved you right? Come on. He just proved that the ball gets bigger. Like I said, I'm sharing an image right now that confirms it. I don't know if you guys can see it. All those pictures that you showed are cropped. But then it would go back to the size. That's what he said. The content would shrink, too. It wouldn't go back to the size if you crop it. Oh, my God. Because that's cheating. That's Photoshop. No, it's not Photoshop. If you crop the continent bigger on a ball, this stuff. No, you're not cropping the continent bigger ball than the entire picture. You're not cropping the continent. The image that I'm showing shows that I was correct, that the ball got twice the size when you got closer and said that it wouldn't. Okay, but then just crop the pictures to have the balls the same size, which is what you showed in your original picture. What are you saying?  Are you intentionally being dishonest? Are you intentionally being dishonest? Does it make logical sense?  Oh, the good one.  Here's your 2007 image. That makes it true. This one's important. This is very important because it's the 2007 versus 2012 and it shows the continental differences. Yeah, because they're different cameras taken from different sizes to the blue. No, the globe size is the exact same in proportion to the perspective. Yeah, because they cropped it. Because they cropped it to be the same. Nobody is that. Official photos. I'm going to have to re-crop. What? One's closer to the Earth. Official photos. Yeah, they are closer to the Earth. And one is closer to the Earth. One is 10 times the size of the other continent. And I just showed you how that can happen by showing you. No, you showed me something that doesn't make any sense. No, you did not. I'm sort of optical illusion, but that was some form of a lie. But how can this happen? And Ozean proved you wrong. No, I showed the same thing. How can this not make sense? Ozean just proved you wrong. Guys, please, just give me two seconds. How is what I'm showing you? Earth is showing us a fake globe. No. This is not fake, though. This is not fake. Even if you crop them. Right. OK, OK. Let me think. If you have a ball right next to your face, can you see both edges of the ball? All right. No more screen sharing. He's even applied. That doesn't even apply here. He's screen sharing. No. The globe is a ball. If you have a ball next to your face, can you see both edges of the ball? The image that I showed Ozean proves this. How far away does a ball have to be from you to see both edges of the ball? How far does a ball have to be before you realize that it gets smaller the further away it is? And then you crop it. Apparently from the moon, they saw the whole thing, right? Why is it only that picture? How many times have we been back to the moon? No other pictures from the moon, except the one. Here it is cropped. And it's the same thing I said it would be. What should be the same size? Consonant is twice the size. I think that's going to be way too early. Yeah, because it's like, go now. You can see it's massive. You can change the size of the image and put it next to another image. Yeah, and that's cheating. No, it's not. What do you mean, cheating? They're trying to cheat it on. That's just how it is. It may not be clouded photoshop, but it is still photoshopped. I'll resize it. It's photoshopped nonetheless. It's not photoshopped. That's not photoshopped. That's not what photoshop is. No, Photoshop isn't. Oh, my God. Photoshop isn't an application owned by Adobe. Well, now you need that one bigger. But let's be clear. Photoshop isn't an application owned by Adobe. It is not a method of doing things. Okay, let's be clear. Let's be clear. If I prove those pictures are fake, if I prove the first point, do I get five grand from you? Yeah, if you can prove that these are fake pictures. Fake pictures? I get five grand. Are you a medic? 50,000? I would give you. If you can show me that these are fake pictures, I'll give you 50 grand. I can prove they're fake. I get 50 grand. Yeah. Yeah. Look, I knew there was a reason I took this debate. I don't know what we're going to do. Ross, what? Ross, you need a complete waste of time. Ross, find out the exact making model of the globe and it would be very easy to do. Here we go. So here is my discord. I just want to show you quickly. And me talking to my friend, Tommy Granville, and here's the pictures that he actually sent me. So as you can see, they're there. The one on the top was taken 10 inches away with a 10 millimeter lens from 10 inches away. And the one on the bottom was taken with a 315 millimeter lens from 15 to 18 foot away. So there is. That makes sense. This is the point, though. Even if, right, that is possible, which obviously it is because you're showing this, right? You moved the ball, didn't you? But that doesn't prove that that's what they did up there. The camera. That doesn't prove that that's what they did. I have a question. I have a question. What's possible right now? Not what actually happened, all right? I have a question about this. How is the baseboard like twice the size in the bottom one? Because one is closer than the other. The camera on the top one is only 10 inches away. The camera on the bottom one is 15 to 18 inches away, but zoomed in, all right? The one on the top is close, but zoomed out. The one on the bottom is far away, but zoomed in. It looks like an effect of the lens. But I'm saying, how does that prove? What's there we do? That's what's the true lens. No, no, no. No, but the point is, that's not proof. You see, it looks like an optical illusion. Yeah, that's not proof that those pictures aren't fake. What are you talking about? You're showing us a quote. Which is that? That's not proof of anything. Ross, that is the point. The pictures that he showed. I get the point. We get the point. We all get it. But you don't understand for something that this is in evidence. Buddy, it's evidence that it can happen because the position of the camera is not that it did happen. Can happen. Not did. I see what happened here. You have to hype. That's how they can all be true. And yes, but you have to prove that it is true. You have to prove that it is one second. No, you've been in a rough day by the whole time. Hey, I know what you just said. You have to 10 seconds. That's what happened. 10 seconds. Don't worry. Ross, I would like to hear what you would like. I don't care what you would like. You have to prove that that is what actually happens. Hey, buddy, buddy, buddy, calm down. Every other word I said, he had something to say. Sorry, sorry, Dustin. Ross is shouting at me. I didn't hear what you said, Dustin. No, you were shouting over me. You were shouting over me. All right. I was trying to have a conversation with Dustin. Sorry, Ross. I'm trying to hear what Dustin said. So, Ross, if you could calm down. Dustin, sorry, what did you say? You know, some of these countries look distorted as though you have zoomed in so close to the ball that you're basically unable to get proper perspective. And therefore, it is an optical illusion. There you go. Optical illusion. Yes. That is what is happening with the pictures that you have presented. How do you know? How do you know? Except that it's perfect. If I can finish what I'm saying, that would be fantastic. Right? This is what is happening. We're going to give the floor to FTF, you guys. Right. Just one second, Ross. What is happening is, right, with the pictures that you showed of all the different blobs of different continents, some of those are taken from satellites that are really close, right? Let's say this is a satellite and this is the globe, right? Some of those pictures are taken with a satellite here, right? So you can only, this satellite can only see certain bits of the globe, but some of those pictures are taken with a satellite over here. So you can see much more of the globe and it's not going to look as distorted. You're going to see a different thing up here. You're only going to see tiny continents, large continents, because that is all that is in the field of view. Out here, you see the entire thing. Simple. No. Yes. Because the ball was... I'm showing you the pictures. Let it be. Stop. We're just covering the whole... What's happening? Where is it happening? Don't say no. Why is it happening? Let me speak. We'll give it to you just one second. I'll see you in your next. We'll give it to Dustin just to respond with what he just said there. And then we'll let you close it out before we go to Q&A, okay? It'll go and look at Larry. Trying to talk about me being triggered. Be quiet. Do I get to talk? No. All right. We're going to give you... Yeah. We're going to give you a 45 seconds or Dustin and then over OZM before we go over to the Q&A. One second, Ross. You're so excited about this. Two points. One, as you approach the ball, I'm going to use my flat model here, closer, it gets bigger and fills your entire view like you're landing on a planet in a space sci-fi movie. Secondly, secondly, if you were to zoom out on Google Maps and see all those CGI and photoshop and artistic type things, some of which are actually claimed, not only will you find sex in some of the official photos like written in the clouds like the Obama one, for example, a bunch of replicated clouds, same pattern, same time, over and over and over, but you don't find on the Google Maps, zoom out any actual satellites flying around in space. Where are all the satellites? If there's over 25,000 official satellites... Google Earth isn't real-time images. You don't know that, right? Google Earth is just a computer... Where's the old images of all the 25,000? Everybody's getting put on... They just put that in. All right, everybody's getting put on you. They don't cast it for the sake. Before we go into the Q&A. 45 seconds on that floor. Me? Okay, 25,000 satellites would be like 25,000 vans. That's not very many. That'd be like 25,000 vans in a very, very small, like a stadium parking lot. So covering the whole world a stadium parking lot. That's how many satellites you're talking about. Not that much covering the size. Secondly, all we showed with the videos is that it was possible to take those type of photos. You can deny space is big. We didn't go to the moon. All the other stuff. But it is possible to take those type of photos. All right, we are going to go into Q&A, guys. This has been lively, for sure, to say the least. So if you haven't gotten your questions in there yet, there's a lot of questions that we're going to try to roll through them here. I'm just going to check in with the debaters if anybody needs to use the washroom. Get yourself out of the pressure. I was just about to say that. I do need to use the ablutions. I'll be back in two minutes. Okay, all right. Well, then in the meantime, while you do that, if anybody else needs to get a drink or anything like that, feel free to take advantage of this glorious opportunity. On top of that, yeah, this has been pretty lively, to say the least, everybody. Ozean's doing it. Masonic checkerboard.  Joe Biden? How could you? Hey, I knew there was a reason I liked you, Ozean. I want to get Joshua Smith on my channel. He's running his Libertarian candidate. He's a friend of mine. Yeah, you're supporting Joshua Smith. You're not supporting a reluctant wall? Well, whoever they nominate, I'll support it. Okay, you're right. They still haven't done their primary yet. We're going to get down another rabbit hole. I feel like if we start talking about that. Yeah, it was a save. But in the meantime, yeah, if you're watching this here or elsewhere, hit the like button. That helps us out a lot. Boosted up in the algorithm. I see a lot of people voted in the poll there. So let me just close the poll out. And we're going to see where everybody is at. So did we land on the moon? There are 53% of you watching said yes. 37% of you said no. And then 8% of you said we can't land on cheese. It would be difficult. That would be hard. Nice. Although not impossible. It depends how hard the cheese is. So this audience has three times more deniers than the US has. It's sort of like interesting to see that you get more people watching these type of shows than the actual American population. I don't know. I don't know. I think we might just have convinced the other 20%. I don't know. I think that they just got convinced by hearing our arguments.  Let's just say that. Well, we did not talk about epistemology, buddy. Hell no. Well, that's not my point. I'm pointing that I'm making the claim that their understanding of claims and knowledge sucks if they were convinced based on this. I thought you were saying basically based upon what they're looking at in history. Because I'm like, if you look at what's going on in history, there's no proof. There's just proof that everybody lies, especially the government. I mean, that's the only proof we have that they're lying for sure. All right, so FTFE is back, everybody. Welcome back. We hope you feel better sitting there. Not, yeah, let's get to the Q&A before I start making awful jokes. And thank you everybody. No, I want to hear the awful jokes. No, I get in trouble. The people in the live chat pick on me. They hate it. No, we're not going on now until I get a joke. It'll come. Well, let's get into it though and see what you guys think. I got some good British jokes if you want to hear them. I'm just playing. And I'll do my last little bit of housekeeping. If you like what you're hearing from our speakers, they are going to be tagged individually where you can find more of them talking about the things that they care about on their channels. So check that out in the links in the description below. And even if you're watching on the podcast right now, because all of these are uploaded to podcast form within 24 hours. And ooh, you got a guitar. Now you've distracted me. Darren, now what have you done? Right, me too. I'm like, look, you ready? Check this out, though. What is that? Not bad, not bad. My wife made this for me. Oh, made. People think your guitar is green screen, Ross. Is your guitar really there, Ross? It's all here. It's all here. Yeah, it's not green. Look, it's moving. I can't reach it. I can't reach it, but it's there. But he moved the drums. Okay, good. So now the conspiracy theory, it's all green screen has been debunked. Dang it. I should have let the conspiracy theory keep going. Ross is shredding it, you know. He's not actually here right now. In a past life. He's playing bass right now. All right, so Megan Marie for $4.99. Thank you so much for your super chat asks. OZN FTFV team up. Hell yeah, this is going to be a good debate. Destroy the flat earth information. All right, Megan Marie coming in with good vibes for you guys there. So thank you so much, Megan Marie. IC Spin says, Ross, how does a lunar eclipse happen? I just, I just want to say real quick, I do really want to hear a debate between OZN and Dustin. I know you guys mentioned that just like joking around, but that would be cool. This is not about lunar eclipses, all right. Prove to me that we went to the moon. If you want to know about lunar eclipses, come talk to me on my channel, all right. At real offended. There you go. All right, let's carry on. Thank you so much. Maximiliano Villa says, I was in Hiroshima in 2019. Ross, do you want to go back with me and tell people there that nuclear bombs are fake? A little off topic. What will give it a couple? Oh, I would love for you guys, I would love to go back there and see if there's actually a nuclear winter. I would love to examine how long it was before life was resumed normal back in Hiroshima. I mean, I could be wrong, because I've never been to Japan, but I've seen the reports and it's not years of a nuclear winter. I know that for a fact. Because we should, how long is a nuclear winter supposed to happen after atomic bomb? How long did it take before they got back in there? Somebody let me know. Correct me. All right, let's carry on there. I just want to say, as a qualified nuclear engineer, the denial of nuclear weapons personally irks me. Well, let's try not to go down that rabbit hole. Are you a fear monger? Are you a fear monger?  Come on now. Yeah, I'm like, let's not do that. We don't have anything to fear like that. Relax, guys. We'll be right off on another wheelhouse here, guys. So before we get down there and having a full on rodeo, let's carry on. IC Spin says, yes, let's focus on the agenda, not the evidence. Yeah, there was none. So that's all we could focus on. I'm like, dude, always follow the money. Always follow the money. Where's the most money going? And not to actually get that much. Oh, really? I just want to say this. I just want to say this because they always say, oh, well, these other organizations lie. If I got 30 billion dollars, how much money would have to pay my friends to lie for me? Are you like, you guys are really want us to assume that these people don't lie and can't lie? What do you think they're doing with that money? What planet do you live on? What do you think they're doing with that money? Are they throwing constant parties? Spinning it, spinning it. Yeah, they're spending it on, let's say what they're spending it on. Papers convincing people like you that they should keep getting it. Right, right, no, no, what they're spending it on is they're spending it on helium, helium, virtual reality, hold on, hold on. Ross, what they're spending it on is the 17,000 employees, the 3,000 buildings, the amount of money they pay to their contractors, the going to space and developing stuff. Propaganda is expensive. Right, very expensive. It's the number one, it's the number one