Hey everybody, we are debating Flat Earth and we are starting right now with our opening statement from Iger television. The floor is all yours Iger television All right, can you guys see that video? Yes Everything we know about the universe what we're made of galaxies stars planets. That's all right here So according to this chart, we are 96% stupid So the problem with cosmology is that we keep inventing Theories ad hoc theories to try to explain the data such as inflation dark matter Dark energy and so on just to keep patching the theory up There is a crisis in cosmology Usually in science if we're off by a factor of two or a factor of ten we call that horrible We say it's something wrong with the theory. We're not by a factor of ten However in cosmology, we're off by a factor of ten to the one hundred and twenty that is one with a hundred and twenty Zeroes out through this is the largest mismatch between theory and experiment in the history of science What is crap? You have no idea. Okay next question. I don't know nobody in the entire world knows why that fall So it is pushing this Why does that fall? Newton didn't know we can describe it pretty accurately We can describe it pretty accurately, but no one knows why we can describe gravity. We can say what it does to other things we can We can Measure it predict with it I don't need a computer to get the kid interested in that to spend a week Playing with gravity and trying to understand it to come up with reasons why both. So what is pushing this? Nobody knows why so Newton simply Through his hands up and said I don't know so I'm gonna invent something called gravitational Now when I see him acting I can't help but to laugh a lot. They give us cartoons and they claim that we live on the ball But it's flat and it's not moving or spinning at all. Why are you lying to us, man? That's something that we want to know after that you're gonna have to be written by winners of boards such as you would order Kisar's Freemasons and more they pull the veil of our rise and it's time to awaken through organized indoctrination Our minds have been taken. It's time. We take our power back and we rescue our people the Vatican and the bankers are like Resident Evil they may have had the greatest plan that was ever concocted but Illuminati never thought that they never be spotted Manufacturing reality all in our heads. They tell you if the earth is flat and you'll fall off the edge But if it is a skin and all you won't fall off the bed and gravity is our imaginary magic friends Why is water always flat when unmanipulated? Why are pictures of the earth computer generated? Why are you lying to us, man? That's something that we want to know There is no proof that everything that we see today is the result That's absolutely absurd humans did not evolve over millions of years from ape-like creatures Where are the countless missing links? Where's a creature that looks like it's in between apes and humans?  Do you really think that you can get away with it? It's time to pack all your stuff and go home Sincerely? I'm mad for my children It's okay They're beautiful Okay, Wolf Ptolemy refined the Earth's center For 1500 years Ptolemy's system was used as the basis of astronomy and calendars And it worked quite well Copernicus hated that And Copernicus set about to undo Ptolemy's greatest discovery While working at the request of Pope Leo X On improvements to the Julian calendar Copernicus conceived what turned out to be the foundational idea of modernity itself The idea of the Earth moved Not all were persuaded by Copernicus, however The greatest astronomer of the time Tico Brahe developed a new geosangio model The Earth, the planets orbit the Sun And the Sun orbits the Earth Tico hired a young assistant named Johannes Kepler in 1600 Kepler, working on his own development of the Copernican system Needed Tico's observations But Tico refused to part with them When Tico died suddenly and mysteriously in 1601 Kepler took charge of Tico's observations And used them to develop his own system In Kepler's system The Sun is in the center While the planets move on ellipses Non-uniforming The ellipse with its two hokai Allows us to see the Ptolemy's epicycles and eat Or actually a brilliant attempt to express non-uniform motion Centuries before Kepler Indeed, once the concept of non-uniform motion is introduced All of these systems can be shown to be geometrically identical Further back than any of us can remember We are told we live on a globe Spinning ball holding through space And more than a million miles an hour Did you know that's just a story? Let's address the facts Water always finds and maintains its level 70% of the Earth is water So where exactly do you think this curve begins? The world's lighthouses, red roads and bridges All fail the curvature test Can we see much further than the curvature mass dictates? Did you know that every experiment to prove the Earth is moving has failed? Every Did you know that gravity is just a theory that's never been proven? When was the last time you observed the water conforming to the outside of a container Like sticking to a spinning ball? Pictures from space? Did you know that fisheye lenses are NASA's best friend That intentionally distort reality? They openly admit their pictures of Earth are CGI composites And all amateur high altitude balloon footage reveals no occur If there's a spinning orbiting soaring through space How can the constellations have not changed in thousands of years? Did you know that airplanes climb to their cruising altitude Level off and then descend to their destination Never once a second's worth a legend curvature Did you know that helicopters and gyroscopes Don't even work on a globe? We've all been duped Alright, thank you very much for that opening statement We are going to switch it over Where Fight the Flat Earth will be giving His opening statement as well And so, ladies and gentlemen We are very excited for tonight's debate It will be a lot of fun And wanna let you know if it's your first time here Consider hitting that subscribe button As we have many more juicy, controversial debates to come And so kicking it over to Fight the Flat Earth for his opening statement The floor is all yours I'm just gonna need a minute Oh wow Oh Right, so hey I'm FTFE I'm from the channel that kicks stupidity Down the staircase of knowledge And apparently I'm debating a meme Oh wow So I thought that this debate was to present evidence Of a model For either side So I've got evidence of The heliocentric model Making predictions and carrying out those predictions And I wanted to tell One story in particular Which Kind of cement Not only gravity as A fact But the heliocentric model Especially the heliocentric model Of our solar system as correct So When Newton And Kepler came up with their laws of motion And Newton's law of gravity They tried applying it to the luminaries in the sky And they got it to match most things But they were watching the orbit of Neptune Sorry, the orbit of Uranus Sorry And they noticed at certain points in the orbit It wasn't doing what it was supposed to do Based on the laws that they had just come up with So they sat down and they did a bit of math And based on the model that they'd come up with With the model of gravity and the understanding Of the motions of the planets and stuff They said, right, well this motion This can be explained If there is another massive body In this particular spot, right? So what they did was at a certain time in the year When the planet was making those strange motions In the sky They looked at the point that they predicted A massive body should be The point of this prediction was that If gravity is real Then the motions that are a bit weird Can be explained by there being a planet In this position that is exerting a gravitational field So what they did was they made the prediction They looked in the sky at that point And lo and behold, they found a planet The 8th planet in the solar system was discovered And that's what a model does, right? A model will make predictions about the natural world And those predictions will then match reality And that's what the heliocentric model does Gravity, the predictions around gravity match reality In fact, only a week or so ago The smallest measurement of gravity ever was conducted They used two millimeter gold spheres To recreate the Cavendish torsion experiment On a micro scale And they measured the gravitational acceleration 600 billion times smaller than the gravitational acceleration of Earth I think it was even more than that Actually, maybe 600 trillion times But it matched the predictions of gravity The known value of the gravitational constant And it verified what we already have verified before But too much more accuracy than we've ever had before And again, that's what a model does It makes a prediction And if you're looking at the Cavendish experiment You make a prediction that gravity should exhibit torque on the wire Because that's what our prediction of the model is And then that's what happens So when we're talking about a model A model has to be able to make predictions And actually verify those predictions in reality I was hoping Iger would present one, but apparently not But I'm not going to go on about this We can talk more about it in the back and forth But the point is, all predictions that the heliocentric model make are correct And there is one thing that I've been asking flat earthers to explain to me If there's any kind of flat earth model And that is the two meteor showers that we get every year We get two meteor showers every year at the same time Because the earth passes through the tail left by Hailey's comet Which goes in and out our solar system every 76 years The movements of the comet, where the tail is The fact that we're going to get the meteor storms and everything at these particular times Can be mathematically explained and predicted with the heliocentric model If for the flat earth to call itself a model All observations that we make have to be explained Include in observations like that I'd like to get more into the back and forth Because I'm going to press Iger for actually having a model But for now I'd like to yield the rest of my time Thank you very much We will jump into open discussion Want to let you know folks, our guests are linked in the description So if you'd like to hear more from them You certainly can by clicking on those links And that includes the podcast as we now put our guest links In the podcast description box as well In case you're listening via podcast So thanks gentlemen, the floor is all yours for the open discussion Iger, hi, how are you doing? Pretty good, man, how about yourself? I'm doing good, so yeah I was hoping you would give some evidence of a flat earth model I was told that you have a working flat earth model you could present Frankly, what you presented was a bunch of means that I see every time I None of them either disprove the heliocentric model Or give evidence of the flat earth model So my simple question to you is, do you have a flat earth model that you can present? I personally think there's three different good flat earth models that people talk about But the most common one would be the AE map, the azimuthal equidistant map With the north pole in the middle So I think that's my favorite model for now It seems to work with all the astrological signs, it works with all the sun The sun, the moon, pretty much everything It seems like it was a reverse engineer to the heliocentric model Which would be the spinning old laser here, what do you believe in? First off, that's not a model, that's a map And do you know where the AE map comes from? Who came up with it? You're going to say it was a reverse engineer from aglow, but we're going to say that I'm not going to say that, what I could do is I could cite the pattern for the person that came up with that map And the person that came up with that map actually in the pattern for it said that it's based on the globe What year was this pattern that you're claiming because the AE map has been around for a long time? I can't remember his name, one sec It's whoever, what he didn't call it the AE map, the Gleason, that's it, the Gleason map The Gleason map was the first introduction of the azimuthal equidistant projection map And it was Alexander Gleason that came up with that And in the pattern for it that he presented, he explained how it is distorted from that of a globe And that was the first time the AE map was presented Now, apart from the fact that that's a map, not a model Also, I can debunk the AE map as representing reality with one word, and that word is Australia Australia? Yeah, please tell me, is Australia four times the size of Canada? Look, you're claiming that Alexander Gleason is the first person that came up with the AE map when there's older maps There's older maps that precede Alexander Gleason's map like the Obama Like the Urbano-Monte map has an AE map and that one was made back in the 1400s, so there's been plenty of It's an azimuthal equidistant projection map, the one that Alexander Gleason patented If you look at the Urbano-Monte map from the 1400s, that one's also an AE map and it precedes Alexander Gleason Centered on the North Pole? Centered on the North Pole, yeah Showing all of the continents as they are Pretty much, now I will say that they didn't have 100% correct cartography, even back in Alexander Gleason's day, which was in the 1800s So that could account for the distortion of Australia Even now most of the maps we see today, they'll tell you right on the ledgers that some of the continents have been shaped to fit the sizes Nobody knows exactly 100% sure what the flat earth looks like because you can't go sit on top of heaven and look straight down unless you believe NASA, which I'm sure you do I don't need to believe NASA, because NASA is there independently verified So the AE map simply does not represent reality, now the azimuthal equidistant map is correct with distances from north to south So going from the North Pole directly south, the distances will accurately represent reality The problem is when you try to go east to west, nearer the North Pole the east to west is almost correct, but the further away from the North Pole you get The distances east to west become more distorted, this allows the sphere to be represented on a 2D plane So if you were going to take the AE map as an accurate representation of reality, that would mean certain things in reality are impossible There are like flights from South Africa to South America, which exist and take about 16 hours, but on a flat earth would be entirely impossible and based on current planes and fuel capabilities you couldn't have a non-stop flight going from one distance to the other So the distances simply do not work east to west on an azimuthal equidistant projection map And again the person that came up with that, Alexander Gleason, patented it and in the patent explains how it is distorted from a globe Plus as I said, it's a map, not a model, so I guess I'll have to ask the question again, do you have a model? Are you talking about the shape of the earth or how the stars work? No, I'm talking about because like I said, I think it's the most accurate, even according to you, it's accurate until you get to the equator and at that point it becomes just distorted No, no, no, it's already distorted by the time it gets to the equator, any distances east to west once you leave the North Pole are incorrect Yeah, but I mean, if you're looking at the ball from the top, even if you believe in the ball, if you're looking at the Alexander Gleason's map from above, it's pretty accurate until you get to the equator At that point you're going to argue that it's been distorted It's already distorted by the time it gets to the equator Under the equator because for the most part, most of the map is inside of the equator Yeah, so at the equator you're already distorted by about 40% extra in distances east to west, so sorry But again, that's a map and there are many different equidistant projection maps, not just one centered on the North Pole But a map isn't a model, a model is, as I said in my opening, something that has predictive capabilities about the world around us And not just predictive as in, oh, we know that something's going to happen on this day because it's happened before Predict it as in, you can explain the mechanism behind it and predict something down to the milliseconds And that's what the heliocentric model does with 100% accuracy Now for you to say that there's a flatter of model, it would have to not only do these things as well as the heliocentric model, but better than heliocentric model I'm surprised to find out that even the heliocentric model uses all devices to predict the events in the sky such as the astrolabe The plan is here that we use here to look at our Yeah, astrolabe only works on a globe just so you know The astrolabe works perfectly, no matter what As I say there, I can tell you 100% astrolabe sextants only work on a globe Literally because they measure angles and luminaries in the sky, which only corresponds and makes sense to things if we are living on a globe It simply does not make sense, no it's not an assumption, it's a fact, if you model out these things it makes sense It also starts with the same distance away from using a sextant and not a triangulate, it's not taking into account You're not talking about distance to the stars Ryan, how far away the stars are at, so Yeah, okay, all right, stop, you're jumping around here, you're changing the subject You're the one that's kind of pressing so I was Yeah, but you don't measure the distance to the stars, that's all right, will you stop talking? Take a breath I'm still talking too bro, you don't let me I'm trying to explain something and you're just going on, so please just take a second, right Sextants do not measure the distance to the stars, they measure angles of elevation from the horizon So, and when you map them out Okay, I'm sorry, but apparently the middle of my sentence interrupted the beginning of yours, I am terrified, sorry All right, let's hear from, fight the flat earth in terms of finishing that thought, and then I promise we'll come back to you If we have to we'll divide it into like two or three minute intervals, but just because it's already going off the reel So, yeah, so okay, so a sextant, right, a sextant works by measuring the angles of elevation to stars and what you find is that for every six or nine miles that you travel away from the north pole The angle elevation of things in the sky like north pole will change by one degree, and that if you map it out only makes sense on a globe It cannot happen if the earth is flat because one one degree every six nine miles would give you conflicting positions for the elevation of the north star when you map it out on a flat earth, it simply doesn't work A sextant is designed to work on a globe and sailors new list fact So, you know, if you're talking about an astrolabe or a sextant, you are confirming that the earth is a globe because those things are designed to work on a globe All right, that's an incorrect assumption because before sextants and national labels they've been around since the days before people even imagined they lived on the ball. They've been around the solar cycle was around pretty much since the beginning of history, which is 5000 years old. Then you have instruments like the entity cover mechanism that weeks made back in about 2000 years ago around Jesus's time. So, so they didn't believe they lived on the spinning ball back then they didn't have This instruments are still what we use today to predict the motions of the sky, the sun, the moon, the planets, or what we call now the wandering stars, and then back to your sextant thing they are assuming that all the stars are about the same distance away, which is, you know a lot of the sky is 3000 miles but I think it could be a lot closer than that some people say that the firmament starts at 100 miles so there is made with a different layers of glass or water like the Bible describes then you know that's up to the sub to debate and we're probably never going to know Okay, can I respond to that sextant? The motions of the skies we've been able to predict before before anybody ever believed of the thinking of believing on the spinning ball or earth we've been able to predict all the motions of the sky and the planets and whatnot and that's instruments we still got to take go ahead. All right, I mean just to be safe I'm going to put a three minute intervals three minutes is yours fight the flatter. Okay, so Sarah cycle cannot predict things accurately like the heliocentric model can you can get the day roughly when things are going to happen, but the star cycle cannot predict things down to the millisecond, like the heliocentric model can. So we've known the earth was a bull for about 2500 years. This is shown throughout history for like majority of the time. And again going back to the sextant. It only works if the earth is a globe. There is no explanation for the stars changing one degree every 69 miles. Now, when you actually go and map it out, it gives you conflicting elevations for things like the North Pole that's what you're measuring again for the North Star sorry that's what you're measuring against. For every 69 miles you go, it wouldn't be a one degree difference it would it would change every 69 miles would be a different amount of degree change. The only way it can be a one degree change is because for us it's practically parallel, because the things are so far away. It does not work if you map it out on a flat earth. You can't say that the sextant is something that's designed to work on on the flat earth, or even say that it would possibly work on the flat earth, because if you map it out it simply does not work on the flat earth. Right. And again, I have to keep asking you this question. Is there a flat earth model that is as good as or better than the heliocentric model at predicting things. Okay, I'll give you another minute and a half. No, I don't need that into I don't need to go on. You got it. All right, we'll just to keep it roughly the same. Iger give you a minute and a half to respond. So yeah, so again, you're saying that as you travel further south, for example, the North Star, which, which is either 323 light years away or 434 light years away, according to the heliocentric model, because they keep changing the numbers. Whatever things don't matter. But, but yeah, that's exactly how it will work. You're going to the further away you get from an object that's going to lower in your horizon. For instance, if you look at a streetlight, the further you get away from it, the closer it gets to your vanishing point or the horizon. So that's exactly how it works on a flat surface. And that's what we see happening in the sky. The further away you get from North Star, the lower it is in the horizon because you're getting further away from it. North Star being at the center. If you take the AEMap, which is the one I like the best because all our instruments, such as the astrolabal planisphere, they've been around for thousands of years. They still work perfectly today. I actually have a planisphere here that I used to start against myself. But what was the other thing you said? Oh, that they figured out the Earth was about 2000 years ago. According to Aristotle, who knows if this is even too story or not, but he looked down the well, sent his buddy down a couple cities. Don't ask me how they measure miles or kilometers back then 2000 years ago. But apparently he knew exactly how far away he was from his friend to begin with. And then again, what you're looking at, what they saw was exactly what would happen on a flat Earth because the further away you get from an object, like a streetlight, for example, if you're right under, you're not going to cast much of a shadow. But the further away you get from it, the bigger of a shadow you're going to cast. So all they did was get further away from the sun. About a minute and a half. All right. So yeah, we've been able to predict eclipses and and and planetary motions before the spinning pair Earth was ever imagined. And then Capurnicus is actually when the, when the, when the heliocentric ball of theory took off, if you believe it took off instantly, which it did and it took it took centuries for it to start catching on but but yeah, because even there's supposedly a that he wrote a letter rejecting the heliocentric model before he died, but that's that's up for debate as well. And then he was a geocentric and that doesn't mean plus Earth. Right, but, but again, they couldn't see curvature back then, you can see any motion, they didn't have things like gravity that skip you keep you held down to a spinning ball. So you're going to assume that they believe on a flatter back then you're not going to assume that they believe on a spinning pair, unless you bring it was part of a secret society some secret call that they did with a I think Aristotle started it and they were they were sworn to secrecy for God knows how long, and then, you know, they were part of this secret sex or if you think this Aristotle's experiment proves everything and nobody talked about it to Copernicus came around and that was 1500 years later. We actually got some brilliant. That's three astronomers like Ptolemy. I can you hear me. That was three minutes or we're going to kick it over to fight the flat Earth to try to respond to those points. Yeah, so can I can I screen share that games. Sure. Right, I've literally had to break out the crayons for this. Give me one sec. There we go. So you see my lovely drawing here. Right, so this obviously isn't to scale this is just to represent the point. Now, I'm assuming that each this is the North Pole above the star here. Okay, so this is the North Pole here with this North Star above it right and each one of these is a 69 miles away. Now, at each 69 miles, if you change the sextant by one degree. The next time you will no longer be looking at the star. And every 69 miles change by one degree, you're no longer going to be looking at the star, even more, and every 69 miles away you get if you just change the sextant by one degree, you will not be looking at where the star is. However, if you do it on a globe, say this is the North Pole right here. Right. And each one of these points is at 69 miles away. And at these points, if you change it by one degree, you will still be looking in the same direction, which is this way towards the star, which is matches the heliocentric model, but makes absolutely zero sense on a flat earth. The sextant does not work on a flat earth and I want to get this point across because it's very very important as a sailor. I know this for a fact and so did every sailor that has ever used the sextant. It does not map out and correlate to something on a flat earth. The positions would be wrong. It's nothing to do with perspective. It's to do with angles, and it does not match if you map it out on a flat earth. Just before I yield the rest of my time, you keep talking about people like Ptolemy, etc. All right, Ptolemy was a geocentrist Ptolemy believed the earth was a globe. Why do you keep citing people that say the earth is a globe. Like I said earlier bro, you keep assuming they believe in the globe, but there's no, there's not one sentence where they said that the earth was a globe. There's no proof that they believe in the globe. I debated one on this channel the other a couple of weeks ago. I debated one on this channel a couple of weeks ago, who was quoting the Ptolemy's and neotropaconic models, because they are globe based models but in a model where the universe rotates around the globe, instead of the globe rotating around the sun geocentrism and geocentrists all say that the earth is a globe, but it doesn't rotate. They still say it's a globe. I debated not a doctor, Robert Sugenus, whose entire career is about geocentrism. Is this really the hill you want to die on? No, no, no, no. Geocentrists say the earth is a globe. Dude, you talk to one geocentric person that thinks the earth is a globe and you're going to just say everybody has a globe. You got to remember, you got to remember this, the geocentric guy you talked to, he grew up with the same schools that you did, the same propaganda that's been pushed to you since you were a kid, that you've done a spinning ball that's turning through space a thousand miles around the equator and Okay, 66,000.  Just just Google the word geocentrists and tell me what comes up. I'm going to tell you the first thing that comes up for me. Right. And this is a quote from simple wiki. Okay. Geocentrism is the belief that the earth is fixed at the center of the universe. Geocentrists accept that the earth is round. They don't think that the earth is flat. Why do you keep keep quoting people that say the earth is a globe. That's going to be a, that's going to be a modern day assumption that you think geocentrists are believe they live on the ball, but then it's a non rotating boss is still, but back to the flatter.  Let me see his entire model was based on a Pull up, pull up something, pull up something that says telling me believe he lived on a globe and you're not going to find anything because back in those days people assumed they lived on a flat stationary plane just like they could see and Oh, here we go model of the universe told me place the earth at the center of his geocentric model told me thought that the earth was a globe and told me for the universe was a set of nested spheres. Oh right so told me the person that you keep citing was a geocentrists who believe that the earth was a globe. I told me wrote that you just you might it might as well be you saying you're just reading something and where does it come. Well I'll tell you what you tell you what you find me some evidence that told me ever said the earth was flat and then we'll go with that because I guarantee you won't because he never said. In the 1500s, everybody believed in a flatter everybody. There wasn't any evidence for that as well because the flat they knew the earth was a globe. It wasn't any evidence. Dude, what you're doing is you keep citing people that think the earth is a globe. Ptolemy's model was based on a globe at the center of the universe, not a flatter. That's your assumption, I will say I will say that. That's your assumption. But I will say that that they they hadn't discovered or maybe wherever they were at back in Ptolemy's days, maybe he didn't have access to the full map of the world. So he didn't know about the other half of the world he didn't know about America. So maybe he did believe that the the sun and the moon went under the earth at nighttime, because they didn't know that there was another one of the the leg to the they didn't know there was another side to the planning back then to the plane. They didn't know about the turtles on the, you know, the elephant to the back of the turtle. I heard it was all the way down. Is that right? I heard this turtles all the way down. Is that right? Nobody knows because even even today the deepest soul ever dug the deepest soul ever dug is what about eight miles long seven and a half miles deep. So nobody knows was at the bottom of the earth. Nobody knows how deep it goes now according to the Bible is held up by four pillars. So it's kind of interesting when you look at what the ancient Professor Dave, a book says a thing. Oh, a book. Yeah, for sure. Do you believe in any books? Do you believe in history or? Yeah, I mean, just because a book is old like 4,000 years old, I'm not going to discount that the people didn't see what they say they saw. So do me a favor and show me a talking donkey or talking snake or a burning bush that can talk or the sun stopping in the sky. Yeah, otherwise you're not allowed to cite the Bible. Okay, exactly. Yeah, exactly. So yeah, exactly. Cool. Even if you look at your dog or cat, you can you can kind of get get what they're saying to you. I mean, so I don't know the animals spoke back then, but but yeah, according to the creation is that the earth used to be things used to get a lot bigger and older so maybe maybe some animals did the battle of the capability to speak. So that's that's interesting. I'll actually be more about those. All right, all right. So, I just want to clarify what you're saying here is that you have no model for the flat earth there is no model of the flat earth none at all none exist is that right. Well, we have the map. I think it's the most model that's a map and it is not reporting to reality. That's the one I heard you do you hear me. I heard you hear me. I heard you hear me. That's not a model that is a map and it does not comport with reality. So please listen very closely. Is there a flat earth model. Please don't tell me about a map. Is there a working flat earth model that can predict all of the things that the heliocentric model can like I said already broke even even if you look at how NASA predicts predicts eclipses they use the source cycle to predict eclipses so no they don't. Yeah they do check it out for yourself cycle cannot predict eclipses to the accuracy that NASA can use in the heliocentric model. The source cycle can only predict the source cycle can only predict eclipses to the day and sometimes it's out by about you know 36 hours the source cycle cannot predict. Hold on the source cycle cannot predict the exact time and more importantly it cannot predict the location from which the eclipses can be viewed but do you know what model can accurately make those predictions. NASA no no no I asked for a model which model can accurately make those predictions NASA NASA is not a model yet that's one that you've got two more guesses and and what makes it interesting. Hold on hold on I'm asking you which model makes those predictions you've got two more guesses you guess NASA that was wrong because NASA is not a model so you've got two more guesses. All right so I'm going to finish telling you so Fred Spannick is a NASA employee who uses the model to predict eclipses to this day. I'm going to say it again to you let me finish Fred Spannick is the NASA employee that uses the sorrow cycle to predict eclipses to this day for NASA so whenever you look at a prediction of an eclipse you're actually going to Fred Spannick is actually using the source cycle to predict eclipses. Would you like some goalposts because you seem good at moving them. Again, sorrow cycle cannot make predictions the same way that the heliocentric model with but I kind of answered the question we're going to go back to my question. This is very important right this point needs to get across which model can accurately predict the time and position of eclipses. Your first guess was NASA which is incorrect because NASA isn't a model what's your second guess. I'm going to go with Fred Spannick, the guy that NASA employs to predict. Fred Spannick also isn't a model so that's incorrect. Is there a third guess? Is there a third guess to accurately predict the position and location of eclipses because so far you've said an organization which isn't a model. So one more guess which model that we know of and use all the time is capable of predicting the exact time and location of eclipses one guest left if not I have to tell everybody.  And he's not a model. So that that you've got one guest left, which model come on this is easy. You could you could win nothing, but maybe some education. Okay, right. I'm going to tell you the name of the model. It's the heliocentric model. That is the model that can accurately predict the time and location of eclipses the solar cycle can only do it to within a day, roughly. But not according to according to NASA. What I like to do is jump into these intervals again, just as it's rowdy, but we'll go over to part of my interruption I think you were just about to say something. I was just expecting, I don't know why, but a model to debunk but I mean, I keep telling you that a natural spring for a model, the press panic NASA employee that uses the source. How about this, why don't we will give will give Iger will give Iger a few minutes to make his case in, you could say, putting forth his position and then we'll come back to you fight the flat earth to give a rebuttal. Roger. So, according to me, according to what I saw about four years ago I heard that there was flat I couldn't believe in myself because I believe that it doesn't involve for most of my life over 35 years. And I was kind of upset about it, you know, because once you find out that the moon landings were fake. They were filmed by Stanley Kubrick in the studio. Mars rover which is laughable, especially if you have Google and you can look up that one night in Canada, click images you're going to see how similar that is to to to to Mars all you need is a cheap Instagram filter and then these people are getting $20 billion a year $50 million a day to give us cartoons. And I wouldn't use any of the NASA images which would be the greatest proof of all, but they're so laughable that not even the baller debaters will use them because they know they look so fake. It's ridiculous. All you get is cartoons and some bad actors in there. You realize that the Bible actually is true that there's a permanent above there. That's why the start twinkles there's water up there. There's a heaven up there. Deepest whole ever dog is only eight miles deep.  But but in reality the deepest hole ever done is only eight miles deep so nobody. Yeah, that cartoon showing now it's hilarious. It's just a cartoon. It's in a minute image. Most most images of the baller self emitted images for the. They don't even claim them to be real pictures, except for the Himawari a which if you want to pull that up that's also very laughable it looks like a cartoon. It brings you closer to the Bible the whole flat earth man it's pretty amazing how it brings you out to the realization that there's a God above there there's a hell below you. Matter of fact, in the deepest hole they say that they stuck a microphone in there and they can hear this also held us that still comes upon YouTube. There's a little microphone they stuck down in there they can hear help. What else I got for you. You do want to talk about Mars so maybe on my next interval I'll tell you how I came to the conclusion that that that the Mars rovers were filmed in in Devon Island, Canada, and it's pretty hilarious it involves is Mars rat. I'll tell you all about it here. All right, we'll switch it over so thank you very much the the floor is all yours fight the flat earth for two minutes as well. So I guess the answer is no. There is no flat earth model. Thank you for the clarification of that. That's wonderful to know that there is no flat earth model. Yeah, I could tell you that all day. That's not a model. So, yeah, you. I could tell you saw a cycle. Have you ever read the paper by Fred this by any chance. No, I have not, but I know, I know that's important to predict the eclipses. And you should really read the paper that he wrote about it where he explains how you can use the service cycle to make the predictions accurately but no whatever you know it's just what the guy said himself but you know. Okay. You know, like I was saying before you started speaking you have confirmed that there is no flat earth model. So I do appreciate that. So, you know, thank you very much. And what I can say conclusively is that there's no way to replace the heliocentric model with anything flat. There's no way that the flat earth can make the predictions for things that you see in reality and to quickly respond this picture is not CGI it was taken with a physical camera a Hasselblad camera actually and developed in a dark room. Not any kind of Photoshop NASA have said that one picture is Photoshop. All those means that you showed were completely and utterly ridiculous and have all been debunked a million times and simply show that you do not understand anything about the physical universe. You've not come along with any evidence of anything that you say you've come along with speculations and misunderstandings, not knowing what a model even is. That's about it. Why isn't there any evidence for the flat earth. Why, why have you come along with trying to debunk the global from doing it wrong, instead of presenting evidence for the flat earth. The flat earth is self self provable. You don't need, you could just go outside and look at the earth and you're not going to fill any motion you're not spending 1000 miles per hour you're not moving 66,600 miles per hour around the sun. The, you're not the sun's not moving in 500 million miles around the Milky Way and you're not shooting off the big bang at the speed of light or whatever number they want to make up nowadays but but, but yeah, so the flat earth is actually so Google will itself. You don't ever take it into account for anything you don't take curvature into account for anything you don't, you don't take it to account curvature of the earth when building bridges when building aqueducts the Romans built 60 mile long. I would have had to count the makers of the New York, then a Sarah narrows bridge would very much disagree with you they had to take the curvature of the earth into account when building it. Yeah, it's funny because the water looks perfectly level under the curve bridge but that's cool because level is curved to the surface of the earth, but well water sliver and the bridge is curved but either way. Let level is curved to the surface of the earth so you're right the water is level, but the bridge isn't the thing that's curved the bridge is flat. The thing is that the plum support towers are closer together at the top than they are at the bottom. And again their plum, which means that they are completely perpendicular to the ground, yet they are closer together at the top than the bottom, showing that the curvature of the bridge was taken into account when actually designing it and if you go into the design documents of the New York and Sarah narrows bridge, you know from the people that actually designed and built it, they talk about how taking the curvature of the earth into account was pretty important for that design. There's a bridge for paper that we took the curvature of the earth into account, and the bridge looks curved, but every single suspension bridge would have the same phenomenon, where the top is closer together than the bottom, the bridge just happens to be big enough that making the measurement is slightly easier. Yeah, I'll consider that. So no evidence to the flat earth just going itself evidence I don't feel motion is irrelevant because, right, you said you said there's no motion to the earth right words. Hold on hold on hold on hold on hold on hold on I'm asking a question, I'm asking a question. Calm down, you said that there is no motion to the earth because you don't feel any emotions here is that right. Yeah there is no motion to the earth and you don't feel it. Right, explain how we can measure it then. You can measure it or so you can measure the. Based on that I would like your attention for 45 seconds, if the earth is spinning at one rotation every 24 hours that means that every hour has to turn 15 degrees. Nice cartoons get further apart. I'm sorry anywhere on earth. It's going to drift. It's pretty car to me for century.  And pass over from back to the. All that there is no rotation to the earth. One of the people in the community actually purchased one for $20,000. But what we found is is when we turned on that gyroscope, we found that we were picking up a drift. A 15 degree per hour drift. So we can actually measure it and just to quickly correct myself I said closer together I meant further apart I misspoke. Yeah, the tops of the Venice area now bridges are like, I think one and five inches further apart at the top the near close together. And that's what you expect if the earth is a globe I'm obviously not a concave birth or I just misspoke I apologize. Yeah, so, yeah, we can measure that the earth rotates. So how can we measure that the earth rotates if the earth isn't rotating. Okay, for starters, you're using the flux capacitor from back to the future and some cards and says, yeah, that's not a. That's a. Interfusion fiber gyroscope that measures rotation and that and every single one of them in the world measure the rotation of the earth in three axes, and the rotation around the sun in two axes about one degree a day. How is that possible to make that measurement if the earth is stationary. All right, so there's a couple theories, you might be measuring the, the movement of the firmament which we. Listen, it's called it's not how they can work. I'm going to tell you in your own. Let's give them a chance to try to give like. This explanation I've heard is either is picking up the drip from the ether which is the waters above and the firmament and the electromagnetic magnetic stuff that's moving up there. But the other one is, if this gyroscope is actually functional and you put it in an aircraft, you're going to be measuring a movement when you're parked on a parking lot. This will be the most useless. In the history of the world that you're going to take, you're going to take your aircraft, you're going to park and this recording motion then it's going to be, it's completely useless but for me, I personally think it's, it's just a cartoon it's a cartoon looks like a book capacitor I doubt that this. You think it's a cartoon lovely. Okay, from Netflix is the other part you're getting your information from Netflix. So. No, no, no, no. Okay, so the point is showing that is the point. Okay, so let me respond to all the things you said and explain why it's all wrong. First off, it doesn't matter where it came from. All right, Bob showed that he did that experiment on Netflix so I'm going to show it but the thing is it shows what every single anthropometric fiber optic gyroscope in the world shows every single one of them shows the same thing. And every single time a pilot turns on his plane, all three of them that he has on his plane shows that the earth is rotating and actually uses that rotation to figure out where the plane is right it's not a cartoon it is not a flux capacitor. It is an anthropometric fiber optic gyroscope using the stagnant effect to measure the rotation of the earth in three axes and the rotation around the sun, saying it's the ether is ridiculous because the ether does not exist. And saying it's any kind of electromagnetism is also ridiculous because the fiber optic gyroscope uses light, which does not have a charge and is therefore not affected by any electromagnetism. Next. All right, so I don't believe in NASA right. I don't believe I don't care. I haven't cited NASA once. Yeah, I know you don't because you're not you're not debating NASA you're debating me debating NASA. But here you are. So I don't believe in Einstein's theory of relativity as well. You don't understand you mean. Yeah, yeah. No, what, well, you know, whatever. And then here you are. How many times are equations are there. I do want to just let Igor make this case and I promise to come back to you for the same amount of time. Your proof that there is is moving is a it's a Netflix clip that has the, what's it called the flux capacitor from back to the future that's your proof that that it moves. Yeah. So again, this is a why actually gyroscopes actually record motion when something is moving that's the actual function that you're going to have on the aircraft. This gyroscope right here will be, I don't know what you will use it for because if this detecting motion while the aircraft is parked, then this is a it's a danger to your to you if you're taking it up on air flight when it's You should probably speak to every pilot. But, but yeah, I wanted to talk about the Mars rover and how I did that. So I don't know if I could share my screen for like, I'm not finished with the gyroscope yet. And the rotation of the earth. I don't want to move on. I want to show how little you know about everything. Why don't we do this. That's fine. Igor, we can in the future, like as in let's give the flat earth a chance to respond at this point and then I promise right after that, we can jump into your. Yeah, I'm just going to move on to the Mars rover. Go ahead. First of his gyroscope not gyroscope. So you know, but yeah, you're right gyroscopes do record motion. They absolutely do. And that's why you can use not only interferometric gyroscopes but physical gyroscopes to record the motion of the earth. There is several different experiments using actual physical devices using quantum levitation devices using pendulums hung on extremely thin wires that drift the predicted amount. You can do it with a simple swinging pendulum, which will change its amount of drift depending on your latitude. You can actually figure out your latitude on the earth with just a swinging pendulum. It's quite incredible when you understand physics and maths. You not understanding the, you know, the equations and the explanations behind relativity doesn't mean that it's not real. You saying you don't believe it, all that means is you don't understand it. Right. So if you say that you don't believe in relativity, you need to debunk the fact that you and I are talking right now. We would not be communicating the way we are without our understanding of relativity. It's as simple as that. Okay, I'm going to move on to the Mars rover. Of course you are. You don't understand how gyroscopes work, so you want to move on to the next topic and pretend that I didn't just demolish you. But cool, whatever. Yeah, you did great, bro. I did, thank you. Yeah, just like when you said our first Pentagon article, how the solar cycle predictor fixes accurately. Yeah, I read the article whilst you were waffling, actually. It's quite, well, at least I skimmed through it. It mentions about how it's inaccurate and you have to make alterations, et cetera, et cetera. And how actually the solar cycle only works up to a certain time and then has to repeat itself and reset to a different time.  I'd agree with you. But then we both... Please carry on. All right. So the next one is going to be the Mars rover here. I don't know if I can share my screen. You already are, I believe. Yes. We can see. Okay. All right. So, you know, you look up at the pictures of the Mars rover and they all look like this place right here is called Devon Island, Canada. Oh, man. So we got Devon Island, Canada, you click images and it's the largest on the island.  Supposedly that's where they train to film the Mars rover's missions. And then there's something real, real interesting here.  That's probably where they film most of the movies too. But it's pretty cool. Devon Island, Canada, click images. The other thing I wanted to talk about real quick regarding Mars is... Wait, wait, wait. One thing at a time. Hold on. This is tied together. So it's the Mars rack about 10 years ago when I believe in the baller. No, okay. Right. Right. No, that's a different subject. Let's stick with the Mars rover and Devon Island for now before you jump to something else. Okay. This is part of it. No, all right. That's a subject. Let's do one thing at a time. Humor it. Let's, I know that I'm, let's humor it. And I promise we'll give you like plenty of time. And so we'll let you summarize one second. Iger fight the flatters. I promise we'll let you like kind of summarize each of his arguments and then address one at a time. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thanks Devon Island, Canada. Mars rat. You about 10 years ago, NASA released the picture. You can just look up Mars rat. Click images. You're going to see it for yourself. And then, you know, I believe that there was life on Mars about 10 years ago because I thought I lived on spinning ball. I thought that Mars missions were real. So, so yeah. But then you had a brain injury or. No, turn to find out. This is actually Arctic lemon. It's the first time I've ever been to Devon Island, Canada. So the last thing I want to do is up, you know, I show you the Mars rat there. I'm just going to show you the Arctic lemon. So I've made it to Devon Island, Canada. So come, come to find out the flatter. They're sort of right.  They're not, but not sunny robots that are traveling up. Freaking. Who knows how fast these things are going. But yeah, it's, it's ridiculous. And then supposedly these parachutes are landing them safely. And, but no, they're just going to Devon Island, Canada. And then putting a cheap red filter on them and pocketing a $20 billion a year. All right. I'll say go ahead, bro. Cool. Well, pareidolia. So yeah. A rock looks like a thing. Big deal. Pareidolia. I saw clouds that looks like a unicorn the other day. Is there, is there unicorns in the sky? No, no, there isn't because pareidolia is a thing. Oh God. Jump around so much. It's hard to, this is why I was like, no, can you shut up so we can concentrate on one thing at a time? Right. Devon Island. Yeah. So just going, this thing looks like that thing is irrelevant. NASA has never said they do not use Devon Island as a simulated environment because it's one of the closest Mars like environments that you can get on earth. So it makes sense that they would test a lot of their stuff there. Just because one thing looks like another thing doesn't mean that thing that we're showing you isn't real. All you've done is gone. Oh, well, this might be fake. And then showed me some pareidolia. No, it's just, you know, it's nothing apart. It's nothing apart from speculation. Yeah. NASA used Devon Island. Yeah. There's pictures of rovers on Devon Island because they go there to test the rovers that they build before they send them to places like Mars, because you know what?   Just hold on. Just go in. Oh, well, this looks like Devon Island or oh, this looks like a mouse doesn't mean anything. You have no evidence of anything you say.  Oh, sorry, you, but, uh, but yeah, the Mars track to be true that you are. One sec. One sec. Iger just because I want to keep the promise to Craig is forgive me. My attention split between the chat and collecting questions. So Craig, did you get to address both the point? Yeah. Yeah. Um, Paradolia is a thing is my entire answer to that. And wow, Devon Island looks like a thing as well. Um, doesn't matter. It doesn't mean that that is from, from, you know, faking Mars. You know, it's, it's nothing but speculation and. Oh, well, I want to believe you don't have a model. You don't have a functioning map. You don't have any physics that explain anything that you claim, you don't have any distances. You don't have any experiments to show that the earth is not rotating or flat. Don't have any measurements of the earth being flat. Yeah. I can show you so many measurements of the earth being curved because it has been measured. I can show you so many measurements of the earth rotating because it has been measured to your in total zero actual measurements that you can show me. You have nothing.   Go ahead Iger. Forex Intelligence Agency, I think you're disgusting as well, thank you. Just the fans in the chat. Disgusting is a good thing, right? Yeah, in the new Satanic world you live in, yeah, everything's backward, so yeah, good is bad and bad is good, but when you're back to this Mars wrap, bro, I thought it was lag from Mars, but it's just a little articlimin. Yeah, we've never really said this lag from Mars. Yeah, wherever NASA tells you they train, it's actually where they film, you got that exact replica of the International Space Station in Texas, you can just look that one up and it's a swimming pool with a exact replica of the International Space Station, that's where they film the space. Because they train there you unbelievable moral. Okay, I did promise three minutes. Hold on one second, Iger, thanks for your patience. Apologies James, apologies. I was just hearing the echo, sorry. Long story short, folks do want to let you know, want to ask you in the chat to attack the arguments 100%, you can say the nastiest, most terrible things you want about people's arguments. We do want to ask that you respect the speakers, just because we really appreciate them being here, like people realistically, and I know that Craig, you laugh it off, I know that you're not bothered by it, but I do nonetheless want to defend the speakers and say we appreciate them, and reasonable people are kind of like, even if it's the 1% who are trashing the guests, reasonable people don't want to come and hang out there. And so we do want to let you know, we will delete direct attacks on the speakers. And so want to let you know, this is because we do appreciate the guests. You can call me a trash bag, or whatever else you want. I'm going to be here every night, but nonetheless, for real. All right, go ahead, Iger, we'll give you that rest of your roughly three minutes left to go. Yeah, so back to the training, because he says they train in Devon Island. Yeah, they don't only train there, they also film there. Same thing goes for the underground pool of the International Space Station in Texas. That's also where they say they're training for space walks, but in reality, that's where they film them. They have an exact replica of the International Space Station in California. And there's actually a funny clip of Ashina saying that he grew up in the town across from where they were filming that right now, which because they're in California, he grew up in Maine. So that's a pretty funny clip. Also, you catch these actor knots making mistakes all the time. The one that got me, because I used to watch NASA a lot every day before, you know, when I believed in the spinning balls, like there's no way they're lying to us. And then, you know, I finally saw a couple mistakes myself where they're just the three astronauts waving their bye and all of them sort of into a CGI swirl of glory. So yeah, they're filming just like they're filming any movie. They're actually a lot of the, that's the only thing NASA's good for. They make great advancements in CGI and movie making. They used to do the International Space Station shots with the Bomet Comet aircraft. And that's actually something you can go and do nowadays. Now they got real good with CGI. Just like they filmed the movie Gravity. And that's all we're seeing here when we're talking about NASA, RACS, and Jackson, all the government space agencies. Yeah. And that's real. He loves you, Greg. I hope you come to Jesus Christ one of these days. I hope you wake up to something if it's not the flattered, maybe it's evolution or, you know, evolution is real. Whether God exists or not, it's completely irrelevant to my existence. It doesn't change anything for me. You want a personal relationship with God? That's fine, but do not try and push it on me. I do not need to believe in a God. It is completely irrelevant to me. So do not come from monkeys.  Do you not know anything? We come from common ancestors that monkeys also come from. Oh, so fish, bone fish, I think, right? Oh, Jesus, man. You come from a bone fish. So, I mean, you said so much there. You waffle. It's very hard to actually remember all the things that you say that are so wrong. I'm just going to go with the fact that you haven't presented any evidence that the Earth is flat. You haven't presented the model and map any explanations for physical phenomena or anything at all. Don't understand our sections work. Don't understand our actual work. I mean, you've got nothing to say. It was a clip from the flux capacitor from Netflix movie with the back to the future flux capacitor. That's the only thing you presented. I can present a lot more. That's just a demonstration of a point. A flat earther proved the Earth rotates with science. Well, don't prove it. He gave evidence that the Earth rotates with science, with an experiment, right? Everybody that does that experiment will get the same results. And it cannot be detecting anything apart from the motion of what it is on. I don't care if it comes from Netflix. That was just where he decided to allow his data to be displayed. The fact is, that is what happened when he turned on his gyroscope. The Earth showed a rotation of, say it with me, everybody, a 15 degree per hour drift. So you don't have any evidence for what you say. You don't have a single measurement of the Earth being stationary. You don't have a single measurement of the Earth being flat. You don't have a single working map. You do not have anything. Can you show your picture one more time? The one that you say is real, that it was taken by whatever, just real quick. This one? That's me on the ISS a few weeks ago. That's how easy it is to figure out the International Space Station. That's beautiful I was actually on the ISS. What do you mean? Yeah, so it just shows how easy it is to fake space footage because nobody can go up there. I was there with my buddy Elon. Here was us at the party beforehand. He's really good with the Maracas actually. So we had this big party. Then we popped up to the ISS together, had a bit of a laugh. When we came back, we went out with the lads, hung about. Here's some of us out on the piss the night after, see me at the back there. So it was a great time. Yeah, but you want the picture of the Earth taken in 1982. You and Team Never Skeptic are pretty good friends, right?    So if you're going to... I'm allowed there, right?  It's not Team Never Skeptic. I thought that was his name because he's never skeptical or anything. But either way, fine. This is a picture of... I'm the only one allowed to pick on Team Skeptic, right? All right, good. So this is a picture of Apollo 17. It's the only picture they actually claim is real.  And then you got Africa taking up the whole half of the ball Earth and then supposedly all the other... Oh, Jesus Christ. Hey, you shouldn't say the lowest name in vain. You're going to go to hell, bro.  Well, you're the one bearing false witness.  So I'm saying, according to NASA, they claim this is one of the only real pictures they ever used. Citation required that NASA say this is one of the only real pictures of Earth. Please give me a citation that NASA have ever said that this is one of the only real pictures taken from Earth.  Again, citation required that this is one of the only real pictures of Earth from space. If you are saying that it's a real picture of Earth from space, congratulations. Welcome to the globe. They claim it is, but it's not. But... Then how did they take it and develop it in a dark room? Africa's taking up the whole half of the Earth, all the other continents are supposedly on the other side of the world. How that works out with your math? I don't know. Have a look at this. Do you see this? Yeah, I see more than one continent. I see three continents there. You can see more than... Yeah, but look at the one on the left. Okay. And then look at the one on the right. Which one of them can you see more on? The one on the right, in my case. Okay. So are they different globes or are they the same globe? It looks like a zoomed out globe. So it was taken from a different angle, either way. But it's the same globe, right? It's the same globe, yes or no? It's the same globe, yes? It is the same globe, but these pictures are... Right. So are those countries actually different sizes, yes or no? They're not, but you took the camera from the camera. Wonderful. You understand. Brilliant. Let's move on. All right. Perfect. All right. I forgot where I was going with this, man, but yeah, this is obviously a cartoon. It's not, it's not, it might be a painting. I don't know what it is, but... Citation required. There's no way all the other... In a dark room. With that glow picture, you just present it. The other continent, you still see some of more of the other continents than you do on this picture here. And also, I want to point out that where is the oblate spheroid? How come it looks like... It's right there. It's right there. No, that's actually in the oblate spheroid. The shape of the grass, and it doesn't look like an oblate spheroid. Oh, my God. How are you this... Right, I break out the them in crayons again. The word is woke. How are you this woke? The word is dumb. The word for you is how are you so asleep and still trusting the government? Haven't you realized that they've never told you anything that's true yet? Cool. They didn't teach me physics or anything. No, of course not. Right. German always lies, right? Right, okay. Can I quickly screen share, James? I just need to point out something here. Right. Mr. Eiger, have a look at these two circles for me, would you? Oh, that's a great card. Yeah, this is demonstrating the point, right? One of these is a perfect circle, and one of them is an oblate circle. Could you tell me which one is the oblate circle? No, I'm going to have to take your word for it because... Oh, I can show you the measurements on the screen, actually. Can you tell me just by looking at that which one is a circle and which one is oblate? Because one of them is oblate. I'm going to go with the one on the left, this oblate. Right. Wrong. The one on the left is actually 354 by 354, I believe. This is kind of silly. Whatever. Right, okay. So the one on the left was a perfect circle, and the one on the right was oblate by one pixel, right? So there is a noticeable difference. The one on the right is actually oblate. The one on the left is a perfect circle. But you can tell that really just by looking at them. There's no way to discern that. It's the same with the earth. There's a 42-mile difference in the equatorial circumference as there is to the polar diameters. You're not going to see that with the naked eye. It's tiny. It's imperceivable. The amount of oblate-ness is so small. Yeah, so small nobody can see. Yeah, like I just showed you with the two circles. Okay, so thanks. Thanks for that. You're welcome. I like to educate. Sometimes it's pointless, but... Yeah, so... It's more like we repeat the rhetoric given brainwashing to believe in that word since you were... I'm going to just make an assumption here that you don't have any higher education, right? Yeah, I do, but you can make all the assumptions you want. In physics or in maths or anything where you've had to apply yourself? This is in business, but... Right, so in business. Lovely. So just quickly, if I've got a triangle of sides one, one, and one, what would the internal angles be? It would be 60 degrees each if it's a right angle. I mean if it's a perfect triangle. So if I've got a triangle of sides two, two, and two, what are the angles going to be? You tell me, Greg, because that's your field of expertise. Oh, okay. Is 10 to the negative 17 a positive or a negative number? Bro, it doesn't matter. It really doesn't matter. I'm just wondering if you know. I'm trying to gauge your understanding of the physical world. What do you get if you divide five by zero? Zero, bro. Oh, man. Hey, Greg, can you tell me something since you're so smart? How far is the, how far is Polaris? About 430 light-years, I think. How come it was only 323 light-years like a decade ago? Measurements get made better and better and we update our knowledge. That's what science does. That's why science is open-minded because we're willing to change our position when new evidence is presented. Or is it possible that they can change the distance to Polaris again? Maybe if we find a better way, more accurate of measuring, possibly. So is it a fact then or is it not a fact? Based on current measurements, that's where we approximate it to be. So 10 years ago, the fact was different than now. Again, measurements get updated. The ability to make measurements becomes better and better. Blow your mind if Polaris turns out to be a lot closer than 323 light-years. If there's ever any evidence presented of that and they change our position, but the evidence certainly doesn't say that it's 3,000 miles away, you can tell that it's not 3,000 miles away by using a section and mapping it out. Here, so I guess I'm going to present you a Polaris model, see what you think about it. I guarantee right now you are not going to present a Polaris model. Here, here, I'm going to do my best, okay? I'm going to share my screen. What do you reckon in the chat? Is he going to present a Polaris model? Yes or no? I'll see. I'll try my best. Just remember that a map isn't a model. Okay. And just real quick how it works, you know what I mean? Like according to the Flatter theory, the Sun and Moon are rotating around the North Star, everybody gets that. Now, how do seasons work? Sun and Moon are rotating around the North Star. That's right, Polaris is the North Pole, the North Pole right here in the Middle East. They're not rotating above the Earth, they're rotating around the North Star. I'm sorry, you're right, they are above the Earth, but they're going around the North Star. All right, so how do seasons work? The Sun, we see an anomaly, you know that eight pattern that we see in the sky, so basically the Sun's making throughout the year, it's making a little eight pattern traveling from the Tropic of Cancer through it, the Equator and then to the Tropic of Capricorn. So every year it makes this path and that's how we have the seasons on the Flatter model or whatever. How? Yeah, well you want to meet a percent of models, so this is the most popular Flatter model. That's not a model. Okay, also the Sun here is not. Just to be clear, that's not a model, that's just a simulation. It doesn't explain anything. It says the Sun does this but gives us no mechanism or explanation of why. You're implying that not only is the Sun rotating for no reason, but there's an acceleration inwards and outwards to explain the seasons. Acceleration requires force, where's that imaginary crazy force coming from? That is not a model and again it was on an AEMap, which the creator of Alexander Gleason said was based on a globe. So please stop presenting evidence for a globe, you've done more of that this debate than anything because you certainly wasn't doing any evidence. You say Alexander Gleason came up with a Flatter map, bro, but there was Flatter map. He came up with the AEMap. Alexander Gleason came up with the Gleason's map of the Earth. Alexander Gleason came up with the Alexander Gleason map, which is an AEMap. There was already AEMaps, like I said, from the fourth... That's where the AEMap come from. It was developed by Alexander Gleason. He came up with the method of extending out the latitudes as you get further away from the North Pole. That entire thing, the mathematical model that the AEMap is based on, was developed by Alexander Gleason, according to the patent that he registered. Like I said, he came up with his own map, where it did have the latitudes and latitudes, but there was already a map out there. It's actually called... And it was not accurate at all, didn't even have all the blooming countries on, was not the AEMap. It did not have accurate distances north to south. We're talking about the 1400s here. I'll give you an exact date. 1587 is... Yeah, cool. So it wasn't an accurate map. It might not be accurate because the guy that made it probably didn't travel... Okay, yeah, but to be clear, the AEMap is also not... The AEMap is also not accurate. It's so accurate you could use it as a... You know how accurate it means? It literally does not represent reality. It does not have correct distances east to west. It simply does not. It's so good that you can actually use it as a calculator for the time. So wherever the sun's at is... You can't... That entire thing doesn't even work. Where does the AEMap come from? Again, the AEMap does not represent reality. And what you're showing there is not an azimuthalic distance map. The AEMap does not represent reality. Simple as that. The only thing that is accurate on the AEMap is distances north to south. Anything other than that falls outside the realms of accurately representing reality. So I want you to understand this because you don't seem to understand this. You do not have a flat earth model. You simply... There is none. There is no flat earth model. A flat earth model requires you to predict and explain multiple different phenomena. The flat earth cannot even explain why the sun is magically floating above us. Well, I could give you some theories on that because nobody... I bet you couldn't give me a theory. I bet you could give me a hypothesis. I bet you could give me a hypothesis, but I doubt you could give me a theory. Okay, yeah, because nobody actually knows how it works because we don't make $20 billion a year to do this research and nobody can go past the firmament, which is what I made on day two of the Bible. There is no firmament. There's absolutely no firmament. You say so, Craig. Yeah, one of my friends sent something spaced and there was no firmament there. It's like 140,000 feet with all the missions to space with this freedom. If you were to watch a rocket launch, you're going to see how they curve into the horizon. Oh, my God. You're going to say they curve? Oh, my God.  They go up and they go down. You live in Florida and you don't understand. Look, come on, come on. No, no. Of course rockets curve out because that's how they get into orbit. You don't go straight up and then take a hard left. Yeah, they even have a name for that which is what you're showing right now. It's pretty cool. They used to call it the roll program because the space shuttle used to roll backwards and start curving into the horizon. Now they call it the Max Q. This is what they call it with the new rocket launches, but they curve. They tell you they curve because they curve because they got a curve. But in reality, they curve so they don't hit the dome that's right above their head. There is no dome. There is no dome. Sorry, there is no dome. Someone that works on my channel, Reds Rhetoric, has literally measured the distance to the ISS independent of NASA. There is no dome. Well, I got a feeling you and Red Rhetoric like to say independent when in reality you probably work for NASA some type of way or some type of contractor. So maybe you have stock. Do you have stock? Reds Rhetoric, he works for me. He's my contractor. That's the only person that Reds works for as far as I know at the moment. He works for me to make videos from my channel that he's also, you know, it's mine and Red's channel. He works me and I pay him for making the videos. He definitely doesn't get paid by NASA, otherwise he wouldn't need money for making videos on my channel.  So again, I want to clarify, you do not have a model. You came to this debate without any evidence that the Earth is flat. I try to tell you, Mr. Saku, that I think the alien models are accurate. It's not a model. It's a map. Repeat after me. It's not a model. It's a map. It's not too accurate. No, you can. Use the cyrus cycle to tell me the exact time and position of the next eclipse. So basically no is the answer. I mean, this is the best model I got now. It's not a model. You don't have a model. Why are they moving up there? That's anybody's guess. I've never been past the pyramid. It's a magnetism. It's a god playing a DJ up there. There is no permanent though, so it's cool. But yeah, according to you, we come from Boniface. Have you ever stopped in question? That is why I actually have Red's tied up in my basement. It's true, but that's irrelevant. So yeah, another thing the flatter brought me to believe in young earth creation is before that, like you, I believe that we came from about 4 billion years ago, the earth cooled down from a rocky crust that are in for millions and millions of years. Rocks came to life for different theories of geogenesis. At least right now, nobody knows how life came to be. And then it brought me to become a young earth creation. So I think that's pretty cool. Now I think there's only about 6,000 years old. No, it flows. So there's a young earth creationist that I know of on this channel quite often, Ken Hoban, do me a favor and go and ask him what shape the earth is. Okay, so your proof is that Kenhaban believes the earth is a ball. So, so then. No, I was just pointing out that the people that you're waiting to also think that the earth is a globe, told me that you say it says the earth is a globe. NASA, that you keep sight and say the earth is a globe. You say you say it's a globe. And moving with the young earth creation, it's probably the most famous earth creation in the world, thinks the earth is a globe. You gave an A map, which is actually evidence of a globe. We talked about sex and naturally, which only work on a globe. They actually work just fine. Remind me again, which side are you? Are you global or flat earth? Because you've come with more evidence that the earth is a globe. Well, actually, you only came with evidence that the earth is a globe. You didn't bring any evidence that the earth was flat. Was I supposed to do the flat side this time, James? Did I get it wrong? Sorry, my bad. I'll have to give myself a brain injury next time so I can actually do that. We might go into Q&A here folks. Yeah, I do that. You guys feel pretty good? Ready to rock Q&A? Lovely. Want to say thank you very much, everybody, for your questions. I want to remind you of a couple of things. One, I forgot to mention at the start, folks, we are super excited that we are on podcast. And so that's useful to you, which, by the way, I'm super encouraged at the downloads because when I started, I was so afraid that nobody would download it. But so many people have apparently found it useful, so we're thrilled about that.  And so we do appreciate your support on that. And let's jump into the Q&A. So our guests, of course, are linked to the description. So if you want to hear more in terms of statements or positions, you certainly can at those links. But right now we're jumping into the questions. Throw the dwarf. Thanks for your question. This one coming in first says, does fight the flat earth have any other channel he is a part of? Oh, funny you should say that because I do, actually.  Where throw the dwarf is someone that is over there quite often because my character, a barbarian dwarf, gets thrown around quite often.   Nice show, well done. Gotcha, I am. Thank you very much for your question from Steven Steen. He says, Calbert killed Tico with the candlestick in the library. Is that some sort of inside joke? Damn, I've been called. I think they just want a murdering fire if I'm not sure. Nasty guy. Kango24, thanks for your question says, that presentation from the flat earth there was one of the most terrible presentations I have ever seen. Thanks for keeping your criticism focused on the arguments or presentations rather than the people. Then they say, deluded doesn't even begin to describe that. Eiger, I'm guessing you don't agree.  Thank you, come from a monkey that came from a fish and that you live on a spinning ball. No, I think he came from a monkey. So, or a fish. That's where I heard of this guy. That is from Gouda Yu by way of the Sioux. So I think you have to be pretty deluded to believe everything the government is telling you. So it's all right. Juicy. Keep them coming, bro. Thank you very much for your question. This one coming in from, we appreciate it.  It's like the car crash of debate shows. Keep up the great work. Thank you for your kind words. Oliver Katwell says, globe or flat, hit that like button to save the earth. Thanks so much, Oliver Katwell. We do appreciate that support, buddy. If there is not at least 500 likes by the end of the stream, I will launch the news. Thank you very much. We do appreciate your support out there, folks. And JetGuitars says, would the Flatterthir hop in a plane to Australia with fuel that was calculated from the AE map? Or would he rather use our fuel calculations? The funny thing is all maps are flat. So when you're going to calculate distances, you're going to use a flat map. You got it. And thank you very much for your question. This one coming in from Brian Williamson says, I'll fight everybody here. I like that optimism and that oomph. Thank you. Standing for Truth says, great channel, James. Thanks for your kind words. Says, creation versus evolution debate. Right after this debate on my channel, Standing for Truth, consider it an after show. James, keep up the good work, brother. Thanks for your kind words. Did you guys get to debate before fight the Flatterthir, you and Standing for Truth? God possibly, like I said, I've had over 500 debates standing for truth. It sounds familiar. 500 people telling you that the moon landings are fake, that NASA's fake, and how many people is it going to take to convince you that you don't live on a spinning ball and come from a fish, man? And that God is real. Well, Einstein once said that there's two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and he wasn't sure about the universe. And what you have to remember, Iger, is to think about how dumb the average person is, right? And then think that half of the people in the world are dumber than that. And that's the part of the world that the Flat Earthers reside in. That's a sad world you live in. Actually, I think every human being has to think about it. We've got to jump into the next part. Thank you, Richard. Richard Petrus, thank you for your question said. Three questions for the Flat Earther. Why don't we see Polaris in Australia? Just like a light pose, you can see it from like five miles away. It manages into your vanishing point. So once you get past the equator, you can actually see it below the equator to a certain extent. So that's actually misconception. There's people that claim to be way below the equator and they can still see the North Pole star. So Polaris. Next question. Pretty interesting. They wouldn't be able to see it from below the equator if they lived on the spinning ball, but they can actually see it from Brazil. So there's people that claim to see Polaris. So kind of interesting point.  Forgive me. It's just because they packed three questions in here. They said, why are naval spotters at the top of ships? Oh, that's good one, because the higher you go and altitude, the further you can see. And I mean, just if you had an ant that was crawling on the table, you wouldn't be able to see that far. But if you raise that ant to the ceiling, it could see real far. So that's just common sense. Gotcha. And this next question coming. Same person says, number three, why is all navigation globe based?  Every pilot, every navigator takes a flat map with them whenever they do any type of trip. Next time you go on the trip, take a globe and see how far you get. Next up, Eric says, for the record, the earliest extant terrestrial globe was made in 1492 by Martin Behame. This shows it was common knowledge in the 1500s. Even though it was named Columbus, everybody laughed at him when he around, it wasn't in the same year, 1492, that Columbus set up to America. And I think the globe he's talking about doesn't even have America in it. It didn't hit up to America. It does have America, but yeah, even in Columbus today, which is the same date, everybody laughed at him because they knew that the Earth was flat and stationary. They thought he was going to fall off the edge of the world. They didn't know that Antarctica was an ice wall around the Earth.  And that kind of proves what I'm trying to tell you, Greg, that that flatter theory, I mean, the spinning baller theory, it wasn't around back in the 1400s. That's why everybody laughed at Columbus. That's why everybody laughed at Columbus. That's why he had trouble. I know you're absolutely wrong. It was absolutely. Everybody understood that the Earth was a globe. Nobody thought the Earth was flat in the 1400s. Apparently, because it even come around to the 1500s. So it doesn't matter. They didn't think the Earth was flat in the 1400s. There is no evidence that you're making a claim. Kitchen's razor says, unless you can present evidence with that claim, that claim can be dismissed. Your claim is dismissed. Since the Super Chat was originally targeting, I grew up giving the last word on that one and then we got to go to the next one. Yeah, you don't believe in the spinning ball. You don't come from among your fish. So I got an agent in about six days. So I thought I was talking about the question that they just asked you though, Iger. Okay, so Fock U2. Oh my gosh, I just realized it wasn't spelled that way. It was spelled F-A-H. It takes you a second the first time you say it, doesn't it? Very provocative. So basically it says, Iger, do you know what a model is? No, a model. I mean, you could be a lot of different models. I'll refine the question. Do you know what a scientific model is? Like a model, like Nathan Thompson? No, it's like a globe. That's like a model there, I guess, is what you're getting at. No, no, no. So the answer is no, you don't know what a model is. Mike Billar is, thanks for your, he said, Nathan Thompson is a male model. So that counts. Mike Billar is, thank you for your question. That's, fight the flat earth's favorite old buddy, Nathan. Iger, which causes the sun to illuminate exactly one half of the, what, I'm sorry guys, I butchered that. They said, what causes the sun to eliminate exactly one half of the flat earth at a time? Shouldn't a light illuminate a circular spot, not a watermelon slice? Uh, sure, I don't know if you could make my screen big. I'll just use the video I'm playing on my, or, or, but either way, I mean, I have to watch more of your videos. The sun is not that far away. Please don't give me that James. No, it's cool. So the sun's not that far away and there's a firmament up there. So as the sun is traveling, making its path throughout the year, it, it lights up, it lights up more or less, whatever. But the thing is, it's not that far away. Like a lot of models, like to say, essentially illuminate the whole flat earth, but just like a light just to illuminate the whole neighborhood. Neither does the sun because it's not that big. It's not a million miles away. Yeah, it's not a million miles wide. It's a lot smaller. Was it for me the question? Yeah, can I ask you, can I ask you a quick question just about the firmament in general? Why, why do you think there's a firmament? Is it because it says firmament in the Bible? That's one of the reasons, but actually, so let me just follow on from that question. You asked me a question and just give me one word to respond. Like, yeah, I mean, I just needed a yes or a no if you think it's from the Bible. Not only because of the Bible, also because the rockets, they seem to run into something once they reach a certain altitude. And the third thing is we got the sun dogs, where they actually cause reflections of the sun to see different. Okay, right. Back to firmament and being from the Bible, which was my original point. Do you know that when you translate the word firmament back in the original Hebrew that the Bible was written in, it actually means expanse, not dome. You know, it's mentioned more than once. So you could take it into account. Yeah, yeah, and it's literally a translation of the word expanse, not the word dome. It's solid like molten glass, it's solid like brass, or some type of metal at one point. So again, you're taking it out of context. I don't even think the Bible. I've read the Bible, I tell you one thing, I guarantee I've read the Bible more times than you have. Maybe you have, bro, and that makes it even weirder. And many different versions of it as well. How do you not believe in history, like the written history of those people, like you just kind of dismiss it, and you know, it's multiple people that wrote the book. But back to the firmament, bro, there's also this thing called sun dogs. We must go to the next question. Sun dogs only happen on the globe. Thanks for your question, that's what I'm coming in from. Mike Belars, no, we got that one. Jay Nixon, thank you, says, Isaiah 4022 describes the earth as a circle that is implied to be spherical in nature. Was the Bible incorrect about that? And they said this is for the Flat Earther. Can you repeat the question? So basically they're saying, they're saying that in Isaiah 4022 that that's best interpreted as meaning that the earth is a sphere. And they're saying, is this according to the Flat Earther, according to you, is it wrong in saying that the earth is a sphere? Well, it actually literally says the word circle. So the other thing is in the same book, not too far after, I don't know what chapter or verse it is, but there was a word for ball. So he could have used the word ball as opposed to the word circle. So yeah, regarding the Bible in Isaiah, but yeah, there's actually a word for sphere, I believe, in the same book, just a couple chapters later. So he could have used that word. Next question. P.S. Irish Demon. Saw you in the chat. Forgive me for being so, if this comes off as brash, but only because I hadn't got an email response. Nathan Thompson requests to debate you, just letting you know, just wanted to be sure that you actually got my email because I hadn't heard a response, but I know you might be busy, so don't feel pressured. Next up, thanks Esteban Ilebaca. Says, for Iger, Ceros predicts the day of an eclipse. Does it explain how they happen over a flat plane? What about lunar eclipses take your time? That's lunar eclipses. All right. I like it. I like it because actually when I came into the flat earth, there was two things I couldn't explain. And eclipses, the lunar eclipses is one, but there's something called seleniline eclipses, which is the impossible eclipse, where there's a lunar eclipse with the sun still above the horizon, which destroys the heliocentric model because they're obviously both are still above the horizon. So the best conclusion is there's other objects up there that we can't see. They've been known as Rahu and Ketu. And then also they've been called the dark sun. So yeah, there's other objects up there that we don't know about. And again, that goes into how does the sky work, how does the permanent work? According to Jesus, it's hard to explain, hard enough for us humans to understand how the world here works. He didn't get to explain to us how the heavenly bodies operate it if it's magnetism or exactly everything operates up there. So next up, this question in response to the question that was just asked to you, Iger, Jay Nixon says, Iger, what does the consensus in biblical academia interpret the quote unquote circle in Isaiah 4022 to be? So they're asking, what's the majority think? Unfortunately, like most of us, we all have been brainwashed since birth to believe that we live on a spinning ball. First thing they do is put a globe in the classroom. So that's why everybody in this day of age, the latter people are growing, the geocentric people are growing, the biblical cosmology people are growing. But unfortunately, most of us, like myself, it took me 35 years to be in here, but I never heard about the flatters. So I believe I lived on a spinning ball most of my life, just like I expect the whole rest of the world to do because the propaganda, which is controlled by six corporations that own saw the media, they control our point of view on a lot of different topics. I just remembered something. Forgive me, you guys. We have a person who wants to argue that 9-Eleven was an inside job. We are looking for a person to take them on, namely a person who will argue, no, like 9-Eleven is pretty much the way that we understand it, namely a terrorist attack. And so if you happen to be one of the, if you take that position that I just described, please reach out to me via email at modern-day debate. It's actually, I ain't touching that over the 10th floor. Oh man, a lot of people wake up to that, or woke up to that, because that was so long ago, 20 years ago, but that's actually one of the first conspiracies. All right, that's not the topic, so I'm not gonna let you talk about it. Yeah, man, it was done by the bankers. We are, what we're going to do is do want to let you know, folks, yes, that's going to be an epic debate and it's supposed to be next Saturday night. So let me know. I'm at modern-day-debate-at-gmail.com. Next question, thanks you very much. This one, Esteban Ilebaka. One of your mods is insinuating that I'm a transvestite and stuff. I mean, it's very nice, especially coming from your... Things are letting me know about that. Mods up. Oh yeah, okay, so a mod is saying that, what's the name of the person? Do you have any kids by the Flutter? Yes, I have two lovely children.  I think a moderator already deleted it. I can't see it, but let me know because we do actually want to stop. He's asking again next drag night, he says. 44 the truth. It's just lovely that this is the kind of stuff that Flutterers have to resort to, insinuating that I'm a transvestite and stuff, instead of attacking the arguments that I bring up. It's lovely. Thank you for showing what kind of people Flutterers are, 44 the truth. That's very helpful to everybody who's gonna watch this video in the future and the 620 people watching you be a horrific human being right now. Good job, well done. Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah, 44 the truth.  If you want to trash me, fair game. I honestly don't care, 44 the truth. Just want to let you know, I don't care. Trash me, I've asked the moderators to leave the insults of me alone, but don't trash the guests. Matthew Steele, thanks for your question, said IgerTV, if the earth is flat, why haven't cats pushed everything off of it yet? Checkmate. My cats would, though. That's interesting, but you know, obviously there's a ice wall, so the cats will have to travel through all the way through Antarctica. We don't know how big Antarctica is, regarding as a wall. So yeah, that's why it's almost impossible. Like nobody, there's not a 7-Eleven every five miles when you're in Antarctica, so you gotta notice what kind of equipment you will need to try to find the permanent. Where the firmament meets the ice wall. Some people think there's more continents than you would imagine, LSD, something like that. Next up, thank you very much for this question. Appreciate it. And yes, I did remove the mod status of the person that did that. So I saw somebody say that in the chat and I'm like, I completely agree. Just quickly, I have no issues with transvestite at all. I just think using that as an attack on someone, it doesn't bother me, but using calling somebody a transvestite as an attack is insulting to people that are trans and stuff.  So it just shows what kind of person you actually are. So next question, this one coming in from Richard Petrasev, thank you very much, said backwards. They said backwards fight the flat earth closer at bottom than at top. Yeah, I did misspeak obviously with the bridge thing. I said closer at the top. I meant further away at the top.  Oh, whoa, wait, wait, flat earther, pay attention. I just admitted when I was wrong. That's the thing that you can do, by the way. Gotcha. And thank you very much for your question, this one coming in from Ozzie. Thanks Ozzie and for your huge support, by the way. Seriously, that cheered me up last night. I don't know if you guys were here last night. It was a contentious debate. And but Ozzie and you seriously cheered me up despite that. So thank you. They said, Igor, why do we use the curve of the earth in calculating power line protection for lines that are very long and they work all the time? Yeah, I don't think I don't think they use curvature of the earth for anything. Like I said, even when you're flying aircraft, which is the one moment where you think you will need it to take it onto your account. If you've ever seen jets flying right above the ocean, they will have to take into account the curvature of the earth, which is eight inches per mile square for all the size of 24,900 miles since their conference. So even pilots, they don't take it into account. They don't take it into account with building roads or anything like that. So that's just our misconception. You know, it's probably got it from one of Greg's channel or one of his friends. Next up, thanks very much. And do appreciate you guys holding people accountable in the chat. So thanks everybody. And feel free to whistle. I don't know what people have to be like. Like, how is that helpful to anybody? How is that going to make you look good? It doesn't make sense. If anything, one thing they're not realizing is putting that in your chat could actually endanger your channel. That's something that Google doesn't stand for and that kind of thing isn't just insulting to the people you're trying to be derogatory to, but it's also possibly damaging to the channel that you're supposed to be a mod on. I mean, what's wrong with you? Next up, David, thanks for your question, said fight the flat earth. The picture of the earth that you showed only shows Africa on one side of the sphere. So how could the rest of the continents and oceans fit on the other side of that picture of the earth that you showed? Again, I did show the... You can either zoom in on something or be close to it and that will make it look different. Where's the picture that I showed just now? I seem to have lost it. But what did you do? Give me one sec. I can't find out, I think... No, there we go. Yeah, so as this pic... This is the same globe, right? Taken... I think you just changed the lens and moved distances. One side shows Africa to be covering most of it and on the other it shows Africa to look relatively smaller. It's just a matter of how far zoomed in you are. Not understanding, you know, zoom and how you see a sphere based on how far away you are from it isn't a debunk of anything. It's simple.  Thank you to Tommy Granville. This is not the same thing because you're seeing a lot more... It totally is the same thing. It's exactly the same thing. What do you think would happen if you got even closer to that globe on the left? You're seeing America... So yeah, it's definitely not the same thing. What do you think would happen if you got even closer to that globe on the left? You're not going to see the... Look around the edges would disappear. Look at the one on the right. Okay, look how much of Russia you can see. All right, but the one on the left, most of Russia has actually disappeared now. It hasn't just vanished. It's still there. It's just your point of view, what you're able to see of the sphere has changed based on how close you are. I would break out the crayons, but I don't want to... James is trying to get through more pictures. Yeah, yeah, let's move on, but yeah, this is definitely not the same picture you see now. Mike Billers says... Mike Billers says thanks, Bob. And Sleepy Dan says, Iger keeps claiming the globe only has cartoons. So please show us real images of the whole flat earth.  Actually, every picture you're ever going to take that doesn't have a GoPro wide angle lens camera, it's a picture of a flat earth because you can see the horizon as you go up. You can see even further, you can see the horizon there. The horizon is called a horizon because it's horizontal. It doesn't curve. So yeah, every picture of the earth, every picture you're ever going to take is going to prove a flat stationary earth at that because if it was moving a thousand miles per hour or 66,600 miles per hour, it would be blurry. You wouldn't even be able to see it. No, you're traveling the same speed. We're not moving at all. Next up... Reditive motion is a thing. Appreciate your question. Jay... Nixon says, there was an episode of dinosaurs where Robbie walked around the entire earth to prove its round boom. Oh, don't get me started on dinosaurs bro because I'm one of those guys that think either they were big animals like birds that lived with mankind before the flood or you know, the word dinosaur wasn't even invented until 1842 by Sir Richard Owen before that. Every book called some dragons, big lizards. So yeah, so the word dinosaur wasn't even invented until 1842. And then they found it too. Yeah, I don't think he was that serious about the dinosaur comment. But, um... So throw that in there James.  It all ties together. Just to keep it on topic, Magellan says, Magellan says, Hi, modern debate, wishing you lots of omni-directionality and reasonality from Singapore. Thanks for your support, friend. We do appreciate it. And thanks for being... I mean, it must be, it's got to be morning in Singapore, I'm thinking, but we were pumped. Thank you so much. And John Himes says, Fight the Flat Earth. Explain how you think there's a... An air pressure without a physical barrier. Just saying gravity doesn't work by the... Just saying gravity doesn't work by the way, buddy. Well, wrong because gravity is the answer. It's experimentally verified that mass attracts mass. And that the equation FG equals GM1M2 over R squared is correct. In fact, it was only a couple of days ago shown to be correct at the smallest gravitational measurement that they've ever made. So the atmosphere has mass. It accelerates towards the ground. You do not need a physical container to actually hold in gas pressure. All you need is an acceleration that you have to overcome. It's simple. It's not my fault if you deny gravity. I'm not going to also deny a fundamental force of the universe that has been experimentally verified. Gotcha. And Farron Salas thinks your support says, Thanks, Monterey Debate team for providing Saturday Night Entertainment. Thanks, James. Fight the Flat Earth. And Iger for your time this evening. I couldn't... I couldn't agree more in terms of giving the guests credit. They're linked in the description, folks. So if this is somehow the first time that you've heard of them, Hey, this is a great opportunity, whether you're listening via podcast or YouTube, you can click on their links in the description box below. Thank you for your question. This one coming in from Matthew Steele says, Fight the Flat Earth. Would you steel man the widely presented Flat Earth quote unquote argument to explain the reason that the whole world and all of science are lying to the public? I've never understood. I've been told by Flat Earthers that the reason is to have power over... You can fool people and say the Earth's a globe, then you can control anything. Another reason I've been told by Flat Earthers is to hide God. I couldn't steel man it because I've never been given a cohesive answer from a Flat Earth for myself. So unfortunately not. That was actually a good answer. Yeah, definitely to hide God because if you believe you've come from a nothing explosion, it's different than God made everything in six days. But yeah, that was good. And for money, I mean $20 billion a year, that's just NASA, then you got the whole... Yeah, yeah, they just have a bunch of partners with brokers and blow, didn't hear. Space Force that hasn't done anything. I don't know what the Space Force has done other than delete YouTube channel or more like the cyberspace force. Gotcha. Folks, seeing like stuff in the chat, I think you've already been banned. Yeah, but I mean like I'm just like amazed that some of you guys are... I don't know what your problem is because that's 1%. I just want to be clear that 99% of you are actually like pleasant and reasonable people in the chat, but like 1% of you will try to go off on people and it's like seriously, we are happy to delete you.  It's not that hard to just trash the arguments instead of the guess. That's not that confusing. So anyway. Next up. Don't try and insult me by using an LGBTQ like definition as an insult. That's not insulting to me. It's insulting to them because you're trying to use it as an insult.  Next up. This one coming in from C4 said, what a beat down. Hit the thumbs up. Fight the flat earth. Check your DMs. And yes, thank you. Thank you very much for your question. This one coming in from, sorry guys. I got, I got sidetracked. This one coming in from Matthew Steele said, Oh, we got that one. General Balsack appreciate it said, fight the flat earth. What constitutes a model? And how could a flat earther prove his model to you? Well, like I said, a model has to have predictive capabilities and be able to explain multiple phenomena. You know, you have to not only just go, yeah, this is roughly right, but given it may be an explanation of the mechanics behind it, it has to be a mathematical representation of reality that can be verified. And that's something that flat earth never has. They can sometimes explain individual phenomenon. Never. Well, they can at least, say this is going to happen in this order or something, but they can never explain multiple phenomenon happening at the same time with a cohesive model of any kind. Next up. Again, you know, the planus sphere, the astrolabe, all these are instruments we used to need. We used to work on a globe. We used to work on a sky. So, yeah, we have instruments that predict, and that's the same. Same model. You think NASA is using, but they're actually using the same instruments to predict the same event. You, given more evidence to the globe, thanks for that, dude. I do appreciate you doing my job for me. Yeah, no problem, bro. Yeah, the Polaris never moves. The constellations haven't changed in the six times. That's wrong. It's a written history. Sorry, well, hold on. Polaris doesn't move. Then why is it recorded in Almanax as moving over this entries? Why are the star positions different now? So much so, they had to change the star signs. Why don't the, like, the, you know, the guide stones and stuff line up above the pyramids and everything anymore? Why? So, yeah, the stars do move. You're absolutely wrong in everything you say. If you would like to more details on that, go to MC2. They don't change. That's Polaris. They don't change. The constellations haven't changed. All the constellations have changed. They absolutely have changed. Why do you think they have to change? No, they don't have to change. They've actually changed. They've actually changed. Astrolabe is nice. Even if you look at NASA, it's going to tell you they change every 250,000 years. So, yeah, they haven't changed at all because Earth is only 6,000 years old. So they've got to go far away. If you want measurements of it happening over the past few, you know, maybe 10 centuries, go to MC2.net forward slash Polaris, where there is historical Almanax that's used to chart the positions of the stars changing over history. Sorry. You're wrong. I would say you're wrong and the constellations... I've got evidence though. You've just got none. No, I'm not. Next up, what I do want to do is jump in the next one. Magellan says the AE map works perfectly if you use the latitude-longitude lines, which therefore then proves it's a projection of a globe. Yeah, I would say that the AE map has been around before for the globe. So all that does is prove that... No, it's always there. What's a reverse engineer from the AE maps? Next up, Isaiah 4022, 4022 says I flat smack in the real world with lots of success, but I do find theory believers like Craig who love TNASA slash Satan. Yeah, NASA is nothing to do with Satan and I don't have a belief in Satan so it's very hard for me to love him. Next up, B-1, I want to give him the last word on that one. B-1, 6th Street, Burner says, Iger, can you explain the observation of the Sun during the summer solstice from the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer? Fight the Flat Earth? Could you please explain afterwards Love, Modern Day, Debates, Kudos, James. Thanks for your kind words, friends and our friend. And thank you, Iger, for jumping on this question. Your best shot at, can you explain the observation of the Sun during the summer solstice from the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer? Well, yeah, I mean, that's the one where it's like right in the middle of everything so everybody gets to see it. Like I said at the same, I mean, like we all have 12 hour days or one. NASA's right when it's right at the middle of the equator or whatever. Gotcha. Next up, Magellan, thanks for your question said how is the sky able to form? Let's see. You said it must make, it must take Olympic efforts to be, okay. Magellan, we're looking for please don't insult the guests though I appreciate your support of the channel. JT6mania says, Fight the Flat Earth, do you have curvature measurement proof of mass as attracting or time space bending? Do you have proof of gas pressure without a physical container? That's a straw man, right? So let's go one point by point there. Measurement, proof of measurements of curve, yes. Go to mctune.net forward slash r. There's an entire list of measurements of the curve done throughout history that will correlate with each other. What was the next point? You got it, thanks. The next question was, do you have proof of gas pressure without a physical container? Well, that's a straw man. There is no gas pressure without a container. No one says that gravity is the container. And I think you also asked about proof of mass attracting mass. Well, yes, there is much experimental evidence of that. Like I said, recently they measured it with the most accuracy ever using two, I think two millimeter gold spheres and tested the gravitational attraction between that using the cavernous torsion balance. You also asked about any proof of bending spacetime. Yes, that would be the editing experiment of 1919 where they predicted the shift in the position of the stars during the eclipse. And lo and behold, that's what actually happened. So yes, to all those things I can do them, no worries. Gotcha. Next up, thank you for York. Oh, they also asked, is there proof of time-space bending? Yeah, yeah. That's the Eddington experiment of 1919. Gotcha. And then Richard Petrushev says, Flat Earth part of Brazil is in the Northern Hemisphere. Or no, they're saying Flat Earther. So they're saying Eiger. Part of Brazil is in the Northern Hemisphere. All right. That's cool. But I've seen many reports where they can see Apollaris from below the equator far enough where it would make sense for it to be on a spinning pair or whatever it is with the other kids nowadays they live in. Gotcha. And OSD says, Eiger, that makes no sense to me and goes against my beliefs.  Therefore, it's not true, unquote. Is an incredulity fallacy, they're saying. Why do you claim evolution is wrong? Oh, because nobody's ever seen it. We've never seen a monkey evolve. Incorrect.  Nobody's ever seen a chicken evolve into anything other than a chicken. Nobody's ever seen a cow evolve into anything other than a cow. So yeah, there is some adaptation or what they call a micro evolution that happens where you can turn a wolf into a chicken. Incorrect. But you're never going to turn a dog into a human. And we're never going to see it happen. So said, but there actually is demonstrations within our lifetime of species evolving into other species. The London underground mosquitoes being an excellent example of becoming an entire number of species through evolution. So again, I'm surprisingly you are wrong. What are species they become? They became an entire new species of mosquitoes. Oh, so a mosquito turned into a mosquito. But completely different species of mosquito. You understand what I'm saying? An entirely different species. You get that, right? You can turn a wolf into a chihuahua, but you can't turn a chihuahua into a wolf and because you're only loosing everything. There is also evidence of whales becoming whales through fossil stuff. Again, you're wrong. You don't understand anything. So your best proof of evolution is some mosquito becoming a mosquito. All right. Thank you so much. Is evolution actually happening? That's my evidence. Yes. Next up, Joe Bloggs. Thanks for your questions at Fight the Flat Earth. How many? Let's see. That's not quite a serious question. Robert Russell, thanks for your questions. I'm a navigator with thousands of flight hours. We do use flat charts or maps. However, we navigate using orthodromic navigation or great circle navigation. Do you understand great circle navigation? I think that's for you, Iger.  So they're adjusting for their latitude and longitude, assuming they live in the globe, but it's really because, you know, east and west are not the way we've been thought. It's more of a circular pattern and it is a curvature pattern. Next up, this one coming in from Robert Russell said, oh, got that one. Blade Runner 0001 says, I'm wondering if that was Iger throwing the bottle off the edge in, quote, the God's must be crazy. I've never seen that movie. But have you, Iger? God's off the edge and I'm going to have to check it out. What's the name of the movie? The God's must be crazy is what it's called, I guess. Never seen it, bro. Never seen it. Next, Mike Menzi says, if we can see craters on the moon at 240,000 miles away with a $500 camera, why can't we zoom in from the ISS and see people walking sideways? Hashtag flat. They're a lot smaller. ISS isn't about taking pictures of the Earth. We can actually see the entire tachycrator. We can just see the kind of the lines around the outside of it and like a darkness, we can't resolve the actual crater itself, especially not with the naked eye. However, there is cameras that have been powerful enough from space in satellites to zoom in and pick up individual people, just because they don't specifically have it on the ISS doesn't mean that it's fake. And to say hashtag flat after citing the ISS is incredibly dumb. No, because the ISS is just... I can't believe that was to you. People in Texas, that's why... No, no, it's been measured by a friend of mine to be exactly where it is. And I want to show you, I know. I know. Yeah, physical measurements actually work. Yes, they do, you're right. Yeah, the guy that works for you measures it. And that's true. Thank you, man. Yeah, yeah. I mean, he didn't work for me at the time. Even with the revolution, we're on. Next up, Ozean says, no, Iger, I am a power systems engineer who has done the math, tested the schemes and seen them work correctly.  It has zero to do with NASA. I mean, what did he say? What did he claim to have done? Let me... He said, well, I'll read his original super chat. So he said, in his original one, he said, why do we use the curve of the Earth in calculating power line protection for lines that are very long and they work all the time? And then their follow up, you must have said something about NASA because he said, no, Iger, I'm a power systems engineer who has done the math and tested the schemes and seen them work correctly.  It has nothing to do with NASA. Yeah, I don't know the guy personally. I don't want to call him anything, but there is no curvature to the Earth. There is no eight inches per mile square, which would be the formula for a ball, 24,900 miles. So yeah, that's all. You know, that's chord measurements, right? Huh? You know, the eight inches per mile squared is chord measurements. And actually, if you map it out, it makes a parabola not a sphere. The correct formula that you're looking for is h equals r times 1 minus cos a. So it's not your fault that you've listened to Eric Dubey and been indoctrinated by morons. That's not your fault. Don't worry. No, no. No, but again, this whole parabola thing comes from my misunderstanding. I actually debated that for over an hour, just under eight inches per mile square. The correct formula is actually 7.98 inches per mile square. We're still looking accurate for a ball, 24,900 miles since it's here for us is eight inches per mile square. The other problem was that they were dividing instead of multiplying. Next up, Brian Williamson says, will you both fight each other in a boxing match? I'll tell you. I don't know why would I fight physically when I can just dominate him intellectually. It's more fun. Got you. O.G. People could go violence here. O.G. Goblin. Next time. I'm hoping to change his mind. Plus anybody on the check is definitely great. You need evidence to be able to change my mind. Okay, we must go to the next one. It was just a play. They don't really want you to fight. O.G. Goblin says, how come nobody can show proof of this ice wall, even with satellites?  So it was circumnavigating. Yeah, so I've been to McMurder Station in Antarctica and there is definitely no ice wall. Yeah, there's a lot of different stations in Antarctica and there is credible less the International Space Station. Agent Smith number 2727 says, Iger, tell how birds are not real. Birds are real. Birds are real. Got you. No, no, no. They're spy drones replaced by the government in 1974. Are you an indoctrinated sheep that thinks birds are actually real? Oh my God, you have just been listening to the government indoctrination your whole life. Tell me, have you ever seen a real bird give birth to another bird? No, birds are all drones replaced by the government in 1972 to spy on us. And you can't tell me any different. Yeah, have you ever seen a bird give birth to a dog? Next up, Richard Petru. Exactly, they're all drones. Richard Petrusev says, you only see further when increasing altitude on a curved surface. On a flat earth, you would see less because your eyes angular resolution. And that's that's that's ridiculous. Like I explained earlier, you can do this for yourself. And you just, if you just have a simple drone, you could buy, you can definitely see a lot further just by racing your altitude level. And that's that's ridiculous. Like I said, and on the table, can't see to the end of the table. But if you race the ant up three feet above the table, he can see the whole table. So it's a it's a ridiculous argument. And the table is flat, by the way, just like that. Gotcha. And Jay Mixon says, for the record, Iger dinosaurs quote unquote, is a 90s TV sitcom. It was really good. Gotcha. Thank you for that. I miss believing in like little food and the dinosaurs. And no, that's the wrong dinosaur family. Okay. John Heimes says, fight the flat earth gravity is nothing but incoherent electromagnetism that actually decreases with the increase in size of mass.  No, it absolutely is not. That would determine some difference in material and acceleration. Columns law, which would be what that was based on, describes a repulsive and attractive force, whereas gravity only ever describes an attractive force. No, absolutely not. We can measure electromagnetic signals. And also what you're implying means that gravity would stop working inside a parody cage, which it doesn't. Gotcha. I agree with the climate. Gravity, gravity is just a theory. It's never been...  So... Yeah. And, but yeah, gravity is just a theory, never been proven. Newest gravity pulls everything to the center of the earth. Well, Einstein's gravity. Well, it's all in the experiments, of course. Following the curvature. Whatever. Of the space and time. So neither serial, you can't prove any of them. And then I do find the whole... Look, if you like, you can just say, I don't understand. And it'd be a lot quicker for all of us. I said, Newest gravity pulls everything to the center of the mass. And now you've got Einstein's gravity, which follows an object following the curvature of space time. Yeah. And they both describe exactly the same thing. Because... Because an experiment been done like a couple of days ago, or weeks ago, and they tested a little bit of gravity. Never heard of it, but whatever. That's your problem. Sorry. Probably done by one of your workers. Because the question was originally for fight the fighter. I want to give them the last word. And we'll go to the next one. It's okay. Gravity's been experimentally verified. I'll quickly say five experiments that show it. You've got Cavendish's experiment, the Shehellean experiment, the Eddington experiment of 1919, the Poundrecker experiment, and the... Oh, wait, that was five. Yeah, not at all. Gotcha. And this next one coming in from... Becker T.P. says, Eiger explained the 24-hour sunlight below the Antarctic circle from September to March. The sun goes from spotlight to magically wrapping around the entire outside of the Flat Earth model. Right. And the only videos I've ever seen of a 24-hour sunlight in Antarctica. Now, you can see them from the northern hemisphere, which will make sense on the Flat Earth. But I've seen some videos of the southern hemisphere with the 24-hour sunlight. And they're all from Antarctica. And since only the government and NASA bases are in Antarctica, I don't trust them. Murder bases in NASA base. Oh, my goodness. Yeah, you got it. Next up, this one coming in for you, and they wouldn't lie to you. Next one.  Thank you. It's happy. And my favorite part was where he said mosquitoes turn into mosquitoes, and that was our solution. Next up, we, JT6Venia says, the experiment you mentioned proves electrical current attraction, not gravity, Fight the Flat Earth. That couldn't happen with gold. So no, if you search for smallest measurement of gravity ever, you'll find an article about the recent, extremely accurate measurement of gravity that was done using two millimeter gold spheres with an insanely small mass, but they were still able to measure the gravitational attraction between those masses. And that isn't explained with electromagnetism or anything like that, so no. It could be, actually. This one coming in from Mike Menzi. Thank you, Mike. Says no footage of international space station being built. Pictures of people from quote unquote space are from drones. Your citing gravity for all your answers, it's never been proven. Never. My experience, I just mentioned, of course. Next up. Next up. Tim Pryor says, heck with Antarctica, how does Alaska get 67 days of night in 80 days of sun, or I'm sorry, of daylight on flat earth? Right. And then so when the sun is moving around the traffic of cancer, which is the closer circle, then it will make perfect sense. You can also see 24-hour daylights from Iceland. And I've talked to a lot of people, but again, only Antarctica has 24-hour daylight, according to a couple videos that you see from Antarctica that have been poorly edited, and you can see where they clip them and stuff like that. So yeah. As far as I know, from no continent in the southern hemisphere, which actually has population, they did not experience 24-hour sunlight. It's only in Antarctica, and it's only from one of the government control bases. If you guys don't know about Antarctica, by now, after debating 500 people, then you know there's been a treaty in place by corporations and governments to not allow people to explore. Next up. The crawdaddy zero to nine. I can just say you've never read that, have you? So it's cool. The crawdaddy zero to nine says, it's the strangest thing.   Iger? Well, yeah, you take into account also the people that have circumnavigated globe, like Magellan, and they always stop around. Nobody can circumnavigate the globe crossing the Antarctica. It's only, um... Oh, have you not heard of one more orbit that did it about a year and a half ago? Interesting that you wouldn't have actually looked that up for a circumnavigation of the globe going over Antarctica, because that's exactly what the one more orbit team did. And do you know what else? They live streamed the entire thing. Amazing that it's never been done, except for it was live streamed. That's incredible. Yeah, so you... How long did it take them if it was live streamed? This must be like a ridiculously long video. How badly had it? I'm not sure at the exact time. Does anyone could just go and look up the one more orbit team and see what they did for themselves? But to say it's never been done is a ridiculous assertion. So you're saying it's never been live streamed? You said it's been done once about a year ago. I'm gonna have... I'll watch it, but I'll... That's a... That's one... It's been done many times, but everyone complains that there's no records, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Someone did it, and they could imagine the entire thing. Skipping through the wall and coming right back out. So that's when you look at the wall. It's who Pac-Man physics. That's what they do see. They go off one side and they magically teleport to the other. They travel through the wall and then come back up on the other side, but they don't actually cross Antarctica. They're just skipping through the... Please tell me... Please tell me you're being sarcastic right now. Please. Oh, they're skimming all the way through the wall. Slowly tell me you are being sarcastic right now and not making a serious statement. Because if you are making a serious statement, I am taking that as a short and putting it on my channel. Yeah, go ahead. Take it. But that's a challenge. I'm gonna put the whole... Next time. Could you say it again for me? Everyone say it, James, please. Could you just say it again for me? What happens? People go down to Antarctica. They skim through the coastline and come back on the other side. They don't cross the southern coast. Now, I haven't heard about this one-world orbit thing that you're talking about. What's it called again? One more orbit. One more orbit. I haven't heard about them, but by the name of it, it sounds like they're related to NASA, RACSA, JAXA... No, not in the slightest. This is one-world orbit.  Yeah, it's just the name of what it was called, right? Sorry, James, for interrupting you. I wonder who funded them, and are they affiliated? Yeah, all the details are on their website. It was privately funded. Privately funded by the government and their subsistence. No, that's not all. That's not all. It's like a pipe of flattery. You know, you can just stop talking at any time. It's perfectly okay to stop people. It works for...  That's kind of fishy. But all right, next question. We're open-ended. Karen and HR. Brian Lee says, Fight the Flat Earth, What in the globe repeats every 18 years matching lunar eclipses? The lunar eclipses. Iger, they say, Come to Brandon's Flat Earth Channel if you are near Jacksonville, Florida to discuss tests. Isn't Brandon the Flat Earther? That's what they say. Yeah, he wants you to go over there and discuss tests. Amazing! And B-Ball for Life. I actually had a discussion with Brandon earlier on my channel and it was relatively pleasant even though he's wrong. He was quite as dumb as this guy, that's for sure. Next up. The guy that thinks a mosquito turning into a mosquito proves evolution. All right, moving on. This is exactly what evolution is, but you d