DEBATE: Is Flat Earth Still Tenable After The Final Experiment? | MCToon Vs Brian'sLogic
02:47:47 Share

If your player scores the longest touchdown of the week, you'll win a share of the $250K.

BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. See BetMGM.com for terms. 21 plus only. This U.S. promotional offer is not available in Mississippi, New York, Nevada, Ontario, or Puerto Rico. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER. Available in the U.S. For New York, call 877-8-HOPE-NY or text HOPE-NY-467369. For Arizona, 1-800-NEXT-STEP. For Massachusetts, 1-800-327-5050.

America's Energy Future.

begins now. We have the opportunity to strengthen our economy and reduce inflation, and with this opportunity comes great responsibility. Working together, we can harness our energy advantage and improve the lives of every American. More American energy means more jobs, more security, and more innovation. That's the promise of America's oil and natural gas. America's moment is now. Learn more at LightsOnEnergy.org. Paid for by the American Petroleum Institute.

Oh, no. Hey, everybody. Tonight we are debating whether or not Flat Earth is still tenable after the final experiment, and we are starting right now with MC Toon's opening. Thanks so much for being with us. MC Toon, the floor is all yours. Thank you very much, James, and thank you, Brian, for showing up here. I'll start with, I'm going to get right into it. When I was in Antarctica, I used this prediction that was made before I got there.

I'd never been there before. This was made by Janusz Takas and based on the globe, the radius of the Earth, the elevation of the sun, the position of the sun in the sky for how long shadows would be.

And it was specifically done with a Nomen of 165 centimeters high. So what did I do? I took a tripod. I put an Insta360 camera on that tripod. I set it to 165 centimeters high. And then I hit record and I left.

Came back once to change batteries and I left again. And then I came back after 24 full hours to see what it did. And I did not even see until hours later what the video looked like because it's almost a full terabyte of video. And it took a while to wrangle that data, but I have it ready to show the full video here. I'm going to share my screen if you're ready, James. Does your video have audio?

It does. Does it, is it copyrighted? It is not. All right. I'm trusting you. All right. Ready? Go for it. All right. Well, I need to make sure I hold on. Yeah. I did the audio myself. So it's from Suno. So let's see. This is like, so is you like playing music in your basement type audio? Yes. My, no, if people want to see basement music,

or hear my basement music, that's a different stream. So nobody wants that. It's terrible. The name of our band is Consistently Poor. We named it that for a reason, because we're poor. Anyway, here we go. Is the audio coming through?

The audio is not yet coming through. Okay. Oh, one thing. Hold on. We can fix this. If you unshare and then once you click share, there's a little box at the bottom that you have to tick and it'll say... Share something. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Got it. We need the music. We need your music. Okay. It's going to have to have a restart of Zoom. So I can go without the music. It's just music. So...

All right. Are you seeing it at least? Yes. Okay. So this is, that was the same piece of paper that I showed. And so here we see the shadow reaching to where these little snow boulders, as I call them, are. And this is the extreme north side.

facing end there and you can see they're they're spot on the length that i uh that we predicted long before getting there so the the length of the shadow is known based on the geometry of the globe quite uh quite something to be so precise on that and uh so it's uh it's so much more uh feeling with the music because the music is so nice but it's okay

So this took me quite a few hours to set up. I had to get the angles right. I had to get the distances right. In the end, I was shifted about two, three centimeters

to the west. You can see I'm a little shy on the touching the edge of that snow there, but on the other side it's the same amount over. So just the east-west is a bit off in the position, but the length of the shadows is absolutely spot on for what was predicted before going there. Again, I had never been there before. We just passed due south, so the sun is in the north as far west

as high as it gets. And here we're coming around, starting to face the other direction. So this is a 360 camera. It's two lenses facing opposite directions that are stitched together. And you can see this right here is the power cord feeding it the whole time. And so this is the stitch plane here. So it's quite something that I set this up and I walked away and it was totally correct the whole time around.

And I had asked flat earthers for quite a while before for their predictions. And I'm stopping the share now. For their predictions for what the sun would do for how high the sky it would be for when it would set because they thought it would set. I got nothing from flat earthers. No flat earthers had any predictions at all. And so I'm anxious to hear what

After showing this, that the sun did in fact do circles 24 hours a day for multiple days in a row. It never set the entire time. It was well high in the sky. It was at the lowest, it was 77 degrees from zenith. So zenith is straight up. So it was 77 degrees in angular declination from zenith. And at its highest, it was 56 degrees from zenith.

As predicted on the globe and as measured in real life as you watch that video there because that video is based on those angular elevation measurements. So an awful lot of embedded predictions for the globe in their completely falsifiable test.

And if you are familiar with Karl Popper's work, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, specifically chapters three and four, where the essence of doing an experiment is a falsifiable test. That's what I did. I did a falsifiable test for the globe and it passed, confirming that.

that the Earth is a globe, adding to the mountains of evidence. And I did do some basic rudimentary predictions based on flat Earth for how high or low the sun should be. It did not match for where the sun should be east-west for the heading. It did not match. It should be northeast-northwest and due north, but it wasn't. It was due south at times. So falsified flat Earth predictions

So, excellent, excellent confirmation of the globe. And so I would say that after this, as well as before this, but definitely after this, Flat Earth is not tenable. I'm anxious to hear how this could possibly work using any Flat Earth explanation. As Brian's position is, I'm anxious to hear, certainly his position is that Flat Earth is tenable, and I want to know how it is tenable.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much for that opening MC tune. Folks, if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, I'm your host, Dr. James Coons. I want to say we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you're from. Don't forget to hit that subscribe button as we have many more debates coming up. And right now in the live chat here at Modern Day Debate on YouTube, we have put a poll in the live chat asking what you think is your flat is your thing.

a globe or do you not know or are you a self-hating soy boy with that we're going to kick it into brian's opening thanks for being with us brian the floor is all yours for your opening as well is tim finished his opening yes okay i'm just going to share my screen there one second second i have nothing that's coming up for my screen share for some reason you'll just want to pick the window that it so it'll give you like options to choose from

Yeah, I have, but it's all not showing anything. One second preview, maybe I'll try one second. One second. I have to allow my system settings to do that's what the problem is. And there we go. Because I hadn't used zoom before. I hadn't given it permissions.

No problem. I'll give you a chance to do that. In the meantime, folks, if you hadn't yet, hit that like button. We appreciate your support. And many more people will see this debate if you hit like. We do appreciate your support of the channel as well. I have to quit and reopen this. Quit and reopen Zoom to share my screen. You've been going on those websites I told you not to go on, Brian. All right. Just give me a minute. I'll be back.

But we are thrilled to have you here, folks. Brian is just going to do a quick renewed login and we will get that epic PowerPoint up. In the meantime, as you can see at the bottom right of your screen, DebateCon 5, our fifth, technically sixth, in-person conference. These have been a hit. We don't want you to miss it as it's going to be in Newark, New Jersey this February.

in particular, Saturday, the 15th of February, as well as Sunday, the 15th, 16th of February. You don't want to miss it. We will have the link for tickets up here at Modern Day Debate shortly. And we are going to have huge debates. For example, let me show you one while we wait for Brian to log back in. I'm excited to show you this at the bottom right of your screen.

Lawrence Krauss, Dr. Lawrence Krauss, and Inspiring Philosophy on YouTube, a.k.a. Mike Jones, will be debating You Don't Want to Miss It. That's going to be a big one. And Brian just logged back in. So let me just adjust the little windows here. Hey, I'm glad to have you back, Brian. The floor is all yours. Thank you. Am I coming in okay? My audio? Yeah, it's crystal clear. Yeah, I have to do that now because it's just a Zoom situation. Okay, thank you for the patience.

Okay, let me know when you're seeing it. I can see some sort of window from your MacBook, some sort of error window, but otherwise I think I can see it. It should be okay. Is it coming through yet now? I see a page with a blue button. I'm having issues with Zoom. I may not be able to share my screen. There's issues with Zoom. It says I'm screen sharing, but it doesn't allow me to. I've clicked on the thing I want to share, and it's not sharing it for whatever reason. I'm pressing share.

Is there anything coming up yet? No, I do see a map. That's it. That's what I want to share. Yeah, that's fine. It was just issues with Zoom. Just a stupid Zoom. No problem. Ready for me. Okay. Okay. My very first thoughts on this whole TFE thing. Most people jumped on the fact that it's called the final experiment. Most people jumped on the word experiment. I didn't. I viewed that as purely a red herring because...

It would be obvious that most flat earthers would jump on that word because it's a claim of an experiment, which it wasn't. It was just an observation. I didn't jump on that. My premise from the start, and it's still my premise, is that the whole point of the TFE is to allow the globe, all the people who support the globe, to hand wave away the past 10 years of utter destruction at the hands of flat earthers.

We have absolutely decimated these people over the past 10 years. They've produced nothing. Not one measurement of the globe, no proof for rotation, no scientific evidence for gravity, no way of showing how gas pressure is possible with our container. There's literally nothing that's come our way. Now,

all we've gotten mostly is nonsense right so the fact that they went to Antarctica and saw 24 sun that somehow now was supposed to allow these people to just hand wave it away and wave away all those 10 years of no evidence being produced and our evidence just got more and more and stronger and stronger and more and more and stronger and stronger yet they produced nothing now

There's a claim that this 24-hour sun debunked the AA map. Now, this is the Gleason's projection.

It is a calculator, but it is using the EE map, right? The latitude and longitude grid on this is correct. The latitude and longitude grid is a two-dimensional horizontal grid. That's what it is. That's how it's measured from its infancy. That is what is hijacked to turn into a globe. It's hijacked, the measurements of this grid is hijacked and you turn it into a globe. It's where the radius comes from. It's purely mathematical, purely calculation, no measurement whatsoever.

And this actual projection here, this underneath it, is a glow projection. So the grid is correct, but the projection underneath this is not. Now, this is claimed to have been debunked by the TFE thing in Antarctica. But this was debunked years ago. It was originally debunked with subsolar points in 2015, late 2015 and early 2016. I think it was actually 2015.

And it was debunked by time zones, right? Only by me and other people. It's ridiculous. I'll show you what I mean. Between Newcastle on the west coast of Australia and Perth on the east coast of Australia, there is a correct local time of two hours. Correct local time is UTC time and correct local time is winter time.

In the summertime, the eastern coast of Australia, most of the places on the eastern coast, like Sydney, Newcastle, big places, they add in an hour for summer, right? But that's not a real hour, right? It's only an add-in. It's daylight savings.

The actual correct time between Perth and Sydney, or Perth, I'm going to use Newcastle, because Newcastle is north of Sydney and Newcastle and Perth are closer to, they're both close to almost exactly on the 32nd degree parallel south. So across that distance, across Australia,

The difference in distance between Newcastle and Perth is only 108 miles less than the distance between Charleston in South Carolina and Long Beach in Southern California. Now, there is correct local time of three hours between Charleston

and Long Beach, right? But there was a correct local time between Newcastle and Pertwee of just two hours. Yet, Charlestown and Long Beach are also on the 32nd parallel, but they're on the 32nd latitude north, whereas Newcastle and Pertwee are on the 32nd parallel south, or latitude south.

So how can there be three hours of correct local time across America, across basically the same distance, and only two hours across Australia? Yet they're both on opposing latitudes.

The only way that's possible is because the Earth is a flat plane. That is why that's possible. So what you're seeing here is not a flat Earth projection. That is the globe projection that's stretched out. It shows Australia stretched to a massive size that it's not. It has Tahiti and Hawaii in two different time zones because the time zone is 15 degrees of longitude. That's the time zone.

Australia between Perth and Newcastle, that section of Australia sits within 30 degrees of longitude. This is a fact, right? There's only one longitude line, one main longitude line, sorry, that intersects the 32nd parallel south between those two points.

The only way that's possible is if the Earth is flat. Because if the Earth was a globe, then there would be three hours of correct local time between Newcastle and Perth. That's just the way it is. There was no if, buts, no maybes. That's just the way it is. Now,

That debunks this projection. It doesn't debunk the latitude and longitude grid. It just debunks the projection underneath it. So I don't know what the problem is with this TFE, where people are saying it's debunked the EE map. The EE map is a globe projection. It's just flattened out. It's a flattened out globe projection where everything south of the equator, and some things north of the equator, but mostly all south of the equator, is all stretched out and manipulated.

So if they've debunked anything, they've debunked the glow projection. So I don't see what the problem is. They debunked the glow projection. Graham, that was debunked years ago. But they also, while they were doing that, had to use UTC time within their claims. Do you know what I mean? They had to use UTC time. So they needed a flat out to do this. And what Tim just showed a minute ago, that's based off a flat plane. He showed basically a sundial. That's a flat plane. Everything they're doing involves a flat plane.

There's nothing that's based off a globe. Everything is based off a flat plane. It's all back calculated onto a globe or into a globe. It's never actually measured on a globe. Now, the next point I want to make is this. On a globe, on the globe within the heliocentric globe paradigm,

If you see this for the sun to move, it means that you're rotating. So the sun only appears to move and the stars only appear to move. The moon is moving because it's orbiting the globe, but the stars and the sun only appear to move within that paradigm. Now, that would mean that the only reason they're moving is because you're claimed to be on a rotating body.

That is the use of, within the globe paradigm, the use of the Coriolis effect involving the globe out. So they're claiming that because you're rotating, it gives you the visual, the visual, the visual, what's the word, the optical phenomenon that gives you the impression that the sun and the stars are moving when it's actually you that's moving, right? That is the globe paradigm. So they need to see things like 24-hour suns in Antarctica. They need that.

Whereas on the flat stationary Earth, which is reality, whatever the sun is doing, if the sun decides to do zigzags tomorrow up in the sky and the stars decide to dance around, it has no bearing on the Earth I stand upon. Because the Earth I stand upon and the stars and the sun are independent of each other.

So whatever the sun is doing in Antarctica in December makes no difference to me because it has no connection to the flat stationary plane I live upon. It only has a connection to the globe. So all this actually was was a confirmation bias for the globe. That's all it actually did. It gave confirmation bias. It doesn't prove a globe and it doesn't disprove a flat plane. It's a nothing bugger from my perspective.

from my perception or from my in my opinion it's a complete nothing burger it does no proof in it of anything the only thing it would have done is if they didn't see it then it would have disproved the globe because they have to see it they have to see that on a globe whereas over a flat stationary plane it means I don't know what the sun is I don't know how it does what it does nobody knows those things people just try to say they do but when you look into it they don't know right like

The whole thing is a mystery. Unfortunately, people who follow the heliocentric globe paradigm, they want to pretend to themselves and to others that they have these answers that they don't actually have. Someone wants to believe they're on a globe and they believe that's why they see the sun down in the sky. That's fine, but that's not reality. Whatever the sun does is completely independent of the Earth. That is the end of that. There's no ifs, buts, or maybes. This whole 24-hour Antarctic sun thing

It's a not in Borg. Sorry, were you going to say something to me, Dan? Oh yeah, I thought you were just wrapping up your opening. How much time have we got left? 10 minutes. Well, if you want to keep it the same as MC Toon, because MC Toon prepared expecting that he would only have 5 minutes. I did message you and say that he could take 10 if he wanted.

I don't mind. I don't mind. If you'll leave it going out, we can just go straight into questions. I don't care. I think we should go to the discussion since he hasn't addressed the topic even. It sounds like he's not going to. Well, there's nothing to address. Then why did you agree to this? Are you confused? Are you in the wrong place, Brian? I hate to do this. I have to bring the camera down early. I have to mute both of you guys at the same time. I just have to make sure that there's...

peace and order so what we're going to do is brian i can give you another minute for your opening and then we want to jump into the open dialogue because to be fair mc toon was expecting that he'd only have five minutes and then like an hour or something before the debate was when you said like actually he can have longer than that so i i can't remember how long mc toon had to like re-prepare but i'll give you a chance to wrap up brian i just clicked uh

ask to unmute. So you should be able to speak now. Yeah. Okay. I'll make it very simple then. The tune said the globe predicts this and the globe predicts that. The globe is an inanimate belief. That's all it is. If you want to say it's an inanimate object in a classroom. It doesn't make predictions. It can't make predictions. It's not a sentient being. So I think asking about predictions is ridiculous.

It's not a prediction. It can't make a prediction. It doesn't have a consciousness. That's a ridiculous question. And the state that I didn't address anything is a complete hand wave of what I said. Now, thank you. I'll unshare my screen.

Thank you very much for that opening as well. Folks, I want to let you know we're going to have a short debate relative to our usual three or four hour debate. Tonight's only going to be about two hours. So do be sure to get your question in as soon as possible. If you happen to have one, you can submit questions either via tagging me at Modern Day Debate in the Modern Day Debate live chat, or if you submit a super chat, that will push your question to the top of the list. And...

All right, well, I never claimed that the globe was sentient. It's the globe model is what makes predictions. It's a fundamental part of science is having a model. You make predictions on it. I didn't claim proof. I claimed confirmation. That's what you can do in science. There's no such thing as proof in science. You can confirm or falsify. And so I falsified the flat earth in this.

because the flat earth requires that the sun does certain things and it didn't do those certain things. So Brian, can I ask you, do you think that there is a 24-hour circling sun? I would like to address what you just said there, Tim. Do you think that there's a 24-hour circling sun in the north? Sorry, could I address what you just said there? No, no. Do you think there's a 24-hour circling sun in the north? No, I can. You know what it wants to be. I will address that. You're often just making claims there that need to be addressed. So if you're going to make claims that need to be addressed, expect them to be addressed.

Right. I'll just hold this up so everybody can see what I'm talking about. If you wanted to just ask me a question, then you should have just asked me a question. But you didn't. You made a claim, so now I have to address them. There is no such thing as a globe model. The globe model doesn't exist. Why use it to make predictions? You're claiming a scientific model. A scientific model is based off of proven hypotheses that have been proven through a scientific method. Now, the globe model that you're claiming is not a model. There is no globe model. It doesn't exist.

Right? Sorry, is there some reason why you're ignoring me? Is there some reason why you're making stupid claims? Sorry, is there some reason why you're ignoring me? I used the globe model. I used the globe model. Sorry, you asked, that's a flat out, you just showed flat out there. Right.

What model is used to produce this, Brian? Are you ignorant of this? It's for some reason. That's not a scientific model. I don't care what you say about it, Brian. I used a scientific model to produce this. You don't know what a scientific model is. Brian, I don't care what your stupid opinion is. Excuse me. It's for some reason. It's for some reason. I hate to do this. I just muted you guys because I do need to have order. So reminder beforehand, everybody agreed we're going to talk about

whether or not Flat Earth is still tenable after the final experiment. So just to be sure we're on track on that topic. And then I can give you about 30 seconds more, Brian, and then we'll kick it over to MC Toon.

I asked you to thank you thank you James yeah listen I don't do anything I would have just answered whatever question he had to answer but he decided to make some claims there that aren't correct right he's claiming a scientific model which his globe is not he doesn't have a globe model he's claiming science he has not there is no way for him to insert natural science into what he's claiming and what he's showing there is on his page is not natural science that would be measurements or whatever so no no if he wants to ask the question now we'll go ahead thank you

All right, now let's give MC2 in a full one minute. Go ahead, MC2. Yeah, this isn't measurements. This is predictions based on the globe model. So I 100% employed, or Janusz employed the globe model to produce this. So saying there isn't a globe model is a very bad look for you because that's how this was produced. And then it was tested and it was confirmed and it matched reality. So do go ahead and continue to make that assertion

If you want, Brian, it's a ridiculous look. It'll only win points in your echo chamber. But outside your echo chamber, people will just laugh at you. I'm here now, and you're not allowing me to address that. So you just showed something there, and you said it was a globe model and predictions of a globe model. No, there is no globe model. What that is is a prediction of what will be seen as the sun circles over a flat plane. Because what you're showing here is flat plane measurements. And it is a measurement of 360 degrees over time.

All right, well, provide... It's not a power to a scientific model. You've made a claim, Brian. I will anxiously await for you to show how this prediction was made based on a flat plane. It's not a prediction. Yes, it is. This is 100% a prediction. It's not a prediction. All this was done ahead of time. It's not a prediction. The sun, the shadow will be at this angle. Has it been seen before? And the shadow will be this length. Has it been seen before? No, it's never been seen before.

What, the 24-hour Antarctic sun? This particular observation here that we predicted... That's not a scientific prediction. Brian, this was never seen before, Brian. Nobody ever stood in that spot. It's not a scientific prediction. Nobody ever stood in that spot before and measured the length of the shadow. How do you know that? Qualidata.

Do you think that somebody did this and we just stole it from them? You idiot. This was never done before. Gentlemen, gentlemen. Okay, I've got to jump in. All right, we're going to go back to the one-minute intervals. Brian, we'll give you a minute, then we're going to go to MC2.

Okay, okay. What he's holding up there, he's calling a prediction. He said no one else ever did this before. He had no validation for any of that. It's not a scientific prediction, which was his original claim. So someone might have predicted the shadows would be this length if the sun is here or the sun is here. I'm okay with that, but it's not a scientific prediction. Okay, off he goes. Thank you. Okay, let's give MC2 a full minute. Got it. Thank you, Brian, for completely failing

to supply the evidence of your point that you said it was based on flat earth. I know how Janusz did this. I wrote my own program to do this as well, got the same numbers. He has a program that he used to output that, same numbers. So I know how it was done. It was based on the sphere. It was not based on a flat plane. You asserted that was based on a flat plane. So please produce your evidence that it was based on a flat plane.

So you weren't using the surface of Earth or mathematically the equatorial plane of the globe.

Did you hear my question? That's not a question. That was an assertion. I'm waiting for you to support your claim. Hold on a second. I want to be clear that if you guys ask each other questions, you're basically ceding the rest of your time. Because each time we try to do open dialogue, it just immediately spirals off of the track. So if you ask a question, I have to give them the full minute.

Brian, I think, refresh me, MC Toon, what was the question that you just asked and we'll give Brian a chance to answer it? Brian, I think I should even say too, Brian, if you want to just tell us like, are you wanting to answer it? Are you willing to answer it? And then answer it if you are. Otherwise, just say no and make your new point. But we just have to know like if you're trying to answer MC Toon's question. So MC Toon, can you rephrase the question for Brian?

I'm asking him to supply the evidence for his claim that this, that I know how it was produced, was produced from a flat plane. And it's over to him to support his claim. Brian, do you want to engage with what MC Toon just said? Yes or no? Yeah, I'll engage with it. I'll do it a little bit different. Well, when you say yes, but, I'm just like, okay, well, just yes, but.

Like, what's the but for? Just go ahead. Well, he's got to avoid my question to him. It doesn't matter. I just answer. Are you going to respond to MC Toon? What he just asked. I'm trying to respond. You're talking about him in some previous question you asked. Go ahead. Yeah, because I didn't ask Brian. Okay.

Well, are you going to allow me to do this or what's the story? Now's your chance, Brian. What are you waiting for? Well, you keep saying that, but you keep on talking when I'm speaking. So can I speak? Yes. I mean, I imagine that was implied, Brian. I'll take that as a yes. So...

Toon, are you claiming that you didn't use the flat surface of Earth or calculate it on the equatorial plane of a globe? Okay, to be fair, it sounds like you're... You can't answer the question. Are you responding to what MC Toon just said or asking... I am. It's a direct response. It was my response earlier.

I just need to get clarification because he's asked me, James, he's asked me to support my claim that what he showed happened over a flat plane. Now, I've asked him, right, did he do it on the surface of Earth and or from a calculation, sorry, a calculatory standpoint at the equatorial plane of a globe? Because he's claiming he didn't use a flat plane and a flat plane wasn't used. And I'm looking for an answer to that. I don't have the burden of proof, Brian. You made the claim, not me.

And I'm asking you, you said it's not done on a flat plane, right? That means you're claiming you didn't use elevation angles. Are you claiming you didn't use elevation angles? Thank God, Brian, can you answer your question? How are you claiming you didn't use elevation angles? It's that simple, Tim. Come on, Brian. How are you claiming you didn't use elevation angles? Support your claim, buddy. Can't support it? Run off. Scamper away. What's the elevation of the sun measure? Scamper away, buddy. So the elevation of the sun was measured. That means you used a horizontal plane.

Do you want me to get a photograph of an elevation? I want you to produce the map that outputs this. Do you want me to do this? Okay. I'm just going to bring us to a new topic because it seems like this is like a hamster spinning on a wheel. It gives you something to do, but we're not getting anywhere. So we'll jump into something from the final experiment.

that MC Toon that you mentioned in your opening, is there anything in particular like, hey, Brian, I would love your answer on this. Give you a chance, MC Toon. My primary thing was the shadow lengths, which are 100% based on a globe. And Brian has asserted that he knows how I did it, even though he doesn't seem to know how I did it, claiming that it was done some other way than I know how I did it.

So that was the primary thing. But I guess we could get to this then. Brian, one question then. Do you agree that there's a 24-hour circling sun in the north? Brian, I asked you to unmute. Are you talking about in June around the Arctic? June? June.

If you can't figure that out, then you're clearly not tall enough to ride. Sorry, James. You're not tall enough to ride. Sorry, James. I need to sort something out here. My opponent is doing his best not to clarify simple little things. I'm asking him a very straight, simple clarification, and he's unwilling to do it. What is wrong? Why are you unwilling to give small clarifications?

Teoine, excuse me, Teoine, you asked for someone to come and debate you here and you think that it's okay to just ignore the person that's debating you?

I think, Brian, I think he thinks... He's just being an a-hole. Hold on, hold on. There's no way for Tom A. Hold on a second. He doesn't have any evidence. Okay, Brian, when I say hold on, why do you think that means continue talking? I think he thinks that you're trolling or that you don't, like that you're trying to purposely lead off topic. I'll let MC Toon speak for himself, but if you can state it one more time, MC Toon, we'll give Brian a chance to respond.

Well, if he's not smart enough to understand what I say, 24-hour circling sun in the North, then he's not smart enough to engage in this debate. That's an ad hom. All I asked, James, all I asked was a clarification question. That's all. And my opponent was unwilling to give it. Sorry, is my opponent willing to give the clarification? Because what he asked, what my opponent asked, James, he said, do I agree there's a 24-hour sun in the North?

Now, that's a vague question. He didn't clarify. He didn't say, do you agree that in June, around the Arctic, there's a 24-hour sun? If he had said that, I would have said, yeah, I agree. All he had to do was give me a clarification. So, all right, we just got your answer. MC Toon, any response? Yes, in June, Brian, that's when the 24-hour circling sun happens in the north, Brian. Yeah, you just said north. North of what?

In the north. North of what? You didn't clarify what you're talking about. I asked you for clarification. Just to make sure, just to steel man your question, to make sure that I knew exactly what you were asking.

I'm not answering questions if I don't know exactly what's being asked. As an outsider, MC Toon, do I understand right? When you say North, you mean like the North Pole region? Yes. Okay. I think that's what he means. This is elementary school type stuff. I'm an outsider, Brian. I don't know anything about these topics, but I think it's pretty obvious he means like the North Pole region. And do you think it's unfair of me to ask clarification on his question before I answer it?

I think it's fair as long as it's within reason. So I think that when you say north of what, he's talking about the northernmost point. So like the most northern point of the planet. So it's, you could say north of everything that is south of it. Yeah, well, I'll always ask clarification questions. Nearly all the time I'll ask clarification questions because I want to know exactly what my opponent is asking me.

Because there's no point in me answering a question. There's no point in me answering a question, James. There's no point in me answering a question if I'm just presuming what the question is. I think we've already identified what MC2 meant. Let's say a one-mile radius around the North Pole. That area. Yeah, yeah. I agree there's a 24-hour zone in the North. North Pole, up around the Arctic. What's the problem? No one agrees to that. No one ever disagreed with that.

Why are you even asking me that? The fact that you're asking me that, like, who disagrees with that? Go ahead, MC2, and you can answer why you're asking him that if you can draw out the... Do you, I'll give you more details since you probably will struggle to answer this without. Do you agree that there is a 24-hour sun south of the Antarctic Circle between... Hold on, you can't talk over me, Brian.

I hate to mute you both. In terms of the actual question, I'll give you a chance to quick re-say it just to refresh everybody's memory.

MC Toon, and then we'll get Brian's logic a chance to respond. So the specific question, MC Toon, if you want to let it rip. All right, Brian, south of the Antarctic Circle during the Southern Hemisphere's summer, do you agree that there is a 24-hour circling sun? Within your paradigm? Within your paradigm? Within reality. You said hemisphere. In reality. Oh, well, there's no hemispheres in reality.

I didn't say hemisphere. I said south of the Antarctic Circle. You said the word hemisphere. Yeah, you did. Cool. They don't exist in reality. Okay, don't care. South of the Antarctic Circle. I do. I do care. Fine, dummy. In December. Sorry, that's an ad hom. God, you damn idiot. You're so stupid, Brian. No, no, that's another ad hom. During December. On December 21st. Do you agree that in reality there exists a 24-hour circling sun south of the Antarctic Circle, you moron?

There's another ad hom. James, this is not ad hom. Yes, all well earned, Brian. You're too stupid to understand this topic. It's way over your head. It's an ad hom when your opponent hasn't proven it. It's an ad hom. I hate to do this.

You guys certainly have chemistry. Okay, so what we want to do here is, one, wow, man, it just drives me crazy. I agree that MC Toon is using personal attacks. That's not the same thing as an ad hump. So many of you, both in live chat and...

So many people sound like damn fools when they say, you know, ad hom, ad hom. And ad hom is when you insult a person as a means of like tying it back to their argument and saying, therefore, their argument is not any good.

If you just call someone a dummy, it's just a personal attack. It's not an ad hominem. It's just, so stop trying to sound smart by talking about logical fallacies when you don't even know what they are, whether it be people in chat or it's just embarrassing when people do this amazingly. All right, we'll give you a chance. Sorry, you're an ad hominem, James.

Because you're attacking the person, not the argument. You're attacking the person, not the argument. That's what Toon was doing as well. All personal attacks within a debate that are not addressing the argument are ad homs. I'm sorry. If you look up the actual definition, an ad hom is when you tie it back to their argument to try to undermine their argument. He's using personal attacks. I agree. MC Toon, if you want to ask your question, I mean, like Google, this isn't hard. Really,

That really is. Look, James, it's very simple, right? It's very simple. I've tried to be noisier, but it's not working, right? It's very simple. All my opponent has to do is keep the personal attacks out of it. I'll call them personal attacks because you don't like me using the word at home, right? All he has to do is keep them out of it and ask me the question. And if I ask a clarifying question, all he has to do is answer the clarifying question. He doesn't have to be an a-hole about it. It's that simple. So if you work that out with him, everything will be much smoother for you.

Okay, let's go back to the question from MC Toon and we'll give you a chance to answer James or Brian. Brian. All right. I asked the question, does he need me to remind him of the question? Well, the question has been lost in translation. All right. On December 21st, south of the Antarctic Circle, do you agree that there is a 24-hour circling sun?

I agree that I saw a video that shows, that looks like there's a 24-hour Antarctic sun. That's from people who are claimed to be, including you, claimed to be in Antarctica. I don't know what Antarctica is. I've never been there. I don't know what it is in its entirety. All I can say is I've seen a video. So it doesn't make any difference to me. I just go, yeah, sure, whatever. Because it makes no difference to me because there's no connection to the flat stationary plane we live upon.

All right, now what model can account for that? Model? None of us have a model. I have a model. That's not a model. I got one right here. That's not a model. It's not a scientific model. Sure it is. It's not a scientific model. I can use it to do all sorts of things. That's a calculation. That's a back calculation of flat-out elevation angles to Polaris.

That's what that is. This entire portion of the Earth can't even see players. Please produce your radius. Where is the origins of your radius? I measured it myself. Please produce the origins of your radius of this logo. I was answering. Please produce the origins of the radius. I was answering. You didn't want me to answer because you interrupted. I personally measured the radius of the Earth while I was in Antarctica at local solar midnight, 2.37 a.m.,

I measured the length of a shadow to get the angle to the sun from Xen. That's flat out. I'm talking. Brian, Brian, do you want me to call you an idiot again, Brian? You're an idiot if you think that's a measurement of a globe. Okay, let's go back to the actual dialogue. So I'm going to give you guys a chance. I'm going to do a little reset here. Nobody's an idiot, okay? Everyone is a...

intelligent person so here we go uh mc2 you're asking a question say that again james um mc2 and you were asking what's your question that you're asking uh um brian mc2 uh melvin as you like to be called i am clicking ask to unmute this is your chance

All right, hold on. I'm drawing a diagram for him. Since he's made claims, I'd like to see him support his claims by showing the geometry. No, you've made claims. You've claimed he's an angle. Shush! Shush, Brian! Okay. You can't use an angle. I'll take a break. Let's relax. I hate to do this. Brian, just... How this? I'm just going to let MC Toon draw out his whiteboard illustration.

And I think MC Toon feels like you're taunting him as he's trying to draw it out. He just wants to finish his illustration. He'll show you and we'll have a nice little time here. Brian Peck, thanks for your super chat question. And yeah, we will have a probably only about a two hour break.

little uh debate tonight so probably only roughly an hour left as we do want to make sure that we can uh get brian uh out of here at a decent hour because right now brian is streaming from uh moscow out in russia so that's impressive and i made that up but he is in europe and we do want to make sure he gets uh out of here at a decent time so

MC Toon, I'll give you a chance to finish your illustration. And in the meantime, folks, we do appreciate if you like tonight's bloodbath, if you like blood sports when it comes to scientific debates, we do appreciate your likes. Also, I want to be clear. When Modern Day Debate has debates, we don't encourage the debaters to be unruly.

I actually asked the debaters both tonight before we went live. I was like, listen, guys, I'm sick. I'm tired. Do me a favor and like, let's have it be as friendly as possible. But you know, it's organic here. So like, if it is going to be unruly, like we just let it fly because if every debate is like nice and happy and peaceful and it's like,

Only because me, the moderator, told the debaters that they have to be that way. That'd be kind of lame, right? It's kind of like, well, it's not like it's genuine, right? So, yeah, it is a little bit Jerry Springer sometimes, but at least it's real. At least it's authentic. And we'll give MC Toon a chance to explain his illustration. And MC Toon, thanks very much. The floor is yours. Have you any music you can play, James? While we're waiting for this.

I think he's done. So he just threw his pen down. I think that's the sign. So MC Toon, I just asked you to unmute. Do you want to share about what your illustration means? MC Toon, we're having a debate. Are you there? I'm here. Okay. This is a great opportunity to explain your illustration to your brother, Brian. All right. So this is what I did when I measured the angle. You'll see here is the globe. Here is the line to the sun.

Here is zenith. I measured 77 degrees from zenith at local solar midnight. So please show me where here is a flat earth elevation angle. Yeah, okay. I'll very simply show it. This is another, this is something that people on your side constantly don't get. See the zenith angle that you are showing there? You know that a zenith angle is an elevation angle, just read the opposite way. A zenith angle has a vertical and a horizontal angle.

Did you not know that? Zenith is only straight up. A zenith angle. No, a zenith angle. A zenith angle. I corrected a globe art math. Sorry, Charles flat art math on this. I corrected other people on it. I showed it with citation.

Even from surveying, a zenith angle is from the vertical, right from the vertical to the horizontal, whereas an elevation is right from the horizontal to the vertical. What you're doing there is trying to not add in the horizontal.

You've just proven my point. You completely missed the part where you showed where this was flat. What would that be? That would be a 23 degree elevation. Where's the flat, Brian? This is not flat. 77 degrees of what, Teon? 77 degrees of what? What's that 77 degrees taken from? What is it subtracted from? What is it subtracted from?

Subtracted from Zenith. No, it's subtracted from 90. You're a lawyer. So Brian, where is the flat? It's not subtracted from Zenith. That's a Lloyd. Where's the flat? Where's the flat, Brian? Do I have to get a citation for you? Show me where the flat is, Brian.

It's the loin you didn't draw. It's the 23 degrees elevation angle. But how will that, Brian, how will that change the shape of this? Because see that circle? That doesn't exist in reality.

Well, so you say, but that's what I used. What you're going to do is you're going to measure from the vertical to the horizontal, right? 77 degrees down, which is a 23 degree elevation angle, 77 degree zenith angle, right? You're then going to have to place that at the equatorial plane of the globe and you're going to have to place it there at, if you're going to do it correctly, you're going to have to do it at

vernal equinox. And that vernal equinox, the equatorial plane of the globe, extends out into the celestial plane, giving you a much huger plane. And it's deemed that the celestials are moving and you're stationary. So what you're actually referring to is a massive stationary plane and you don't even know it.

You don't even know what a zenith angle is. You don't even know what a zenith angle is. My turn to talk, dummy. Hey, idiot. My turn to talk, dummy. Hey, idiot. Hey, stupid moron. My turn to talk. You don't understand geometry. I get to start talking now, Brian. All right, James. It's been great, James. It's been great. James, would I be able to please ask a question? It's going to be great.

So we do want to have a civil dialogue, of course. We can give you a quick chance to respond, Brian. This is about 30 seconds, but when you guys are talking over each other, it kind of defeats the purpose, of course, because then we can't hear either of you if you're both talking at the same time. So if you'd like 30 seconds, I'll give you a chance. Brian, what have you got with... Go ahead.

Yeah, I have a question. What is the 77 degrees subtracted from? That was my question. MC Toon, let me know if you're able to speak or if you're stuck on mute. I can't tell. I just clicked ask to unmute. All right. Just a second here. I'm going to share my screen. All right. You got that? Yep. All right. Make sure the idiot doesn't interrupt me.

So here is a Euclid's elements. One second. Before you start. Oh, the idiot interrupted me instantly. You guys are trolling each other. Okay. Hold on. Okay. Um,

uh brian will give you a chance to insult mc it's not insult i asked the question i was very straightforward i told you what my question was james but hold on just i do okay i do he was mc tune was about to speak and then uh i know that james i asked the question how come it's not brian i would just let me you are you asked

How are you unmuting yourself? I have to do this, James. Brian, you're being so inappropriate. Brian, I'm muting you. So my question was... Brian, relax. MC Toon needs a chance to make his case. I know we insulted you and we'll give you a chance to insult him back, but let's just give him like 30 seconds. MC Toon, please continue. I know you're trying to trigger, you're trying to troll your brother, but...

uh brian by calling him an idiot before launching it yeah he he he answered the call didn't he it was a siren song i said that word and he just jumped right in just volunteering anyway here is mere little argument okay here is uh euclid's elements book three proposition 18 if a straight line touches a circle and a straight line is joined from the center to the point of contact the straight line so joined will be perpendicular to the tangent

So there is the diagram. I'll zoom in on this a little bit here. This is basic geometry. There is such thing as a tangent to a circle, something that Brian is rejecting exists in reality. This does exist in reality. It is part of Euclidean geometry. It's been part of Euclidean geometry for over 2,000 years. He pretends it doesn't exist. Now you look at that diagram.

And then this is beautiful. Look at my diagram here. Do you see my diagram? You see the similarity. You see what's happened here. So now Brian is pretending that there doesn't exist such a thing as a tangent to a circle.

And he imagines in his little fantasy world that this line here makes this stop existing. But in reality, it does exist. So the fact is that you can have a zenith. You can have 90 from the zenith. Call it what you want. I call it the complement. And then you can have the 77 degrees, which is the departure from the zenith. Now, he is asserting...

through magic and through words and through hocus pocus and secret incantations, that the fact that this tangent line exists somehow makes this stop existing. And so I'd like to hear how he thinks that magical incantation happens in reality.

So the tangent line that's just been placed in there is what's known as a begging the question fallacy. The tangent line that he's trying to claim as a tangent is the horizontal that is used for to measure his Zenith angle or an elevation angle from that. So he's just proven by point. I don't even have to do anything. Well, don't him. You absolute genius.

I'm fully aware of what a tangent is, but for you to claim that the angle that you're measuring on Earth is a tangent to a globe is begging the question. That is idiotic stupidity. Confirmation bias. So once again, all he's done is assert that this geometry doesn't exist. No, I never asserted that. That's a police draw, man. That's stupid straw man nonsense.

I never asserted any of that. Anyone can hear what I just said and what you just said, which is a total lie. You're saying that I can't do it on a globe. Brian, you're saying this isn't possible on a globe. Just said that I denied the existence of tangents in geometry. I never did.

So is it possible? Nobody's denying the existence of tangential geometry. So Brian, is it possible to do this on a globe? Nobody is denying that. Brian, shush, Brian. Is this possible to do on a globe? Is the horizontal you denied earlier? Is this possible to do? You thought you didn't need a horizontal for a zener angle. That shows what you know about geometry. You're a bozo. And that's not an atom. That's just a fact. So now an insult is not an atom. Okay. But that's not an insult. He's demonstrated that. He demonstrated that, James, what he just did.

Am I showing with geometry? He won't let me talk, James. One minute. One minute. One minute. Back and forth. That's the only way it's going to work. He's too stupid to shut his face wall. We've got it set for one minute. MC Toon. So, all right. Brian has asserted, it seems, that it is impossible on a globe to do this. Right? Of course, it's

So then he somehow comes back and says that it's possible to have a tangent line. Okay, it is possible to have a tangent line. Super, Brian. I'm glad you agree it's possible to have a tangent line. So it's possible to do this on a globe, you've said. So you change from your previous position of saying that it's not possible to have an elevation angle

from a globe and that it can only be on a flat surface to now you've said it's possible to have an elevation angle on the surface of a globe by referencing the tangent line. So thank you very much for acknowledging that it's possible and that it's not exclusive to a flat plane. Okay, can I respond to that, James? Sure.

Yeah, okay. Now I didn't say any of those things. What I said was that he was claiming the horizontal was a tangent to a sphere, which is begging the question fallacy. Now, if he's saying it's a tangent to a circle, then it can be a horizontal, because a circle is two dimensional. But if he's claiming it's a tangent to a sphere, then there is no horizontal. Horizontal doesn't exist on a sphere. There is no horizontal, because...

You can't determine what is horizontal because each point can have another tangent to it. So all he did with his drawing and whatever claim measurement he did in Antarctica was beg the question. He used the horizontal because in reality, horizontal exists. It just doesn't exist within his paradigm. All right, let's give MC2 a chance to respond for a minute uninterrupted as well.

Yeah, of course, horizontal does exist on a sphere. Horizontal is orthogonal to vertical. It's the plane that's horizontal to vertical. I don't know why you'd think that that's a problem at all. It's not. And of course, what I'm drawing here is this is a bisection of the sphere on a plane. I can't draw on two dimensions a three-dimensional object. This is a simplification of it for the diagram. So yeah, so this is vertical. And then this is a portion of the plane that we're seeing here that's horizontal to

at this point, which is orthogonal to this zenith angle. This zenith, it's actually a ray. Brian? Yeah, I'll respond to that, James, if you don't mind.

Yeah, you can't have vertical or horizontal on a sphere because there's no reference for either. You need horizontal for the vertical to be 90 degrees too. You can have a 90 degree angle to a tangent if you like, but you can't claim it's horizontal and vertical because you don't have any reference. Horizontal and vertical. Horizontal is a constant orientation. All

All horizontals are parallel to each other and all horizontals are parallel to the plane of the horizon. And all lines meeting that horizontal, that creates 90 degrees of verticals. You can't have those on a sphere. All verticals are parallel to each other. All horizontals are parallel to each other. On a sphere, each point along that sphere is a new tangent point. So which of the two points has the horizontal? None of them. Which of the two points has verticals to those horizontals? None of them because there is no horizontals.

You don't understand geometry. There aren't two points. There's only one point here. It's on this on there. Yeah, but you can put another point on there. Stop talking. Stop talking. No, it doesn't mean anything. Stop talking. You can't even get an angle between the two. Stop talking. Stop talking. I won't. I need to moderate this. You idiot. Shut up. Okay. We're going to give MC2 a chance to respond. The hell is wrong with you, Brian? You child. All right. All of the insults that I've given you, you've earned.

Let's give MC2 a chance. So MC2, you got a minute, and then we'll kick it over to Brian for a minute. All right. Easy. One point. I only had one point. Right here. The one point. Not two points. One point. One point. Just one point, Brian. Just one, Brian, you little child. Anyway, one point right here is all we got. And we do have a reference. The downward vector we have. So that downward vector is a line. Okay.

And orthogonal to that line is the horizontal plane. Now, let me get back to the actual topic here, which is what we did in Antarctica. Can I not respond to what you just said? No, shut up. Shut up. Can I respond to what you just said? Shut up. But we said we were going to give MC2 in a full minute. So I do have to figure out. Yeah. Okay, what I'm going to do here is I'm going to...

uncheck the box okay here we go so it is going to be because it's uh basically unfortunately it's gotten so off the rails that now i'll have to like click a button to let you unmute yourself too so what i'm going to do is i'm going to give mctune a chance to finish this 30 seconds or so and then we'll go over to you brian mctune go ahead all right anyway

Covered this. Now, back to the point of the whole debate here is the fact that we saw the 24-hour circling sun in Antarctica, and you have not yet provided a model of any sort for flat Earth where it could possibly be tenable. And that is the topic that you agreed to a debate, which is the topic that you are aggressively avoiding touching. All right. We're going to give Brian a chance to respond. I'm going to mute MC Toon, to be fair. Even Stevens.

So that way MC Toon can't tell any dirty jokes as Brian is speaking. So go ahead Brian, you have your chance. Thank you James. Yeah, first of all, Toon used the term down. There is no down or up on a sphere. There is into the center or away from the surface. Down and up are only in relation to a horizontal plane. Horizontal planes do not exist on a sphere.

That's number one. Number two, I agreed to a debate and it was from what Will Duffy's video. The topic was from his video was, is flatter tenable after the TFE in Antarctica? Right. That was right. That's what I came in. So I don't know what Tim just said there. That's not what I, I don't know what that's about, but I came into debate that topic. That's what I came here to debate.

So what Tim just said there is a misrepresentation of what Will Duffy stated on his video. And oh, yeah, sorry, I forgot. I meant to. Sorry, I meant to address. Yeah, I don't claim a model. None of us do have models. Thank you, James. It looks like MC Toon is Santa. He's stroking his Santa Claus figurine over there. MC Toon, we'll give you a chance to respond. You got a full minute.

All right, well, I did say exactly the same thing that Brian did. Is Flat Earth Tenable after the final experiment? That is the topic that Brian agreed to.

And it is the topic that Brian is aggressively avoiding talking about. So once again, I will simply say, after seeing the 24-hour circling sun in Antarctica, and he has already agreed that there is a 24-hour circling sun at the North Pole at some point in the year, what possible flat Earth explanation is there that makes it tenable? Thank you.

I don't make any claims about the sky, about what the sun is or how it does what it does. I couldn't even prove there's only one of them. I don't know what the sky is. It's an absolute mystery. No one does. I did address this in my opening, if you remember. I said that the

the flat stationary plane we stand upon is completely independent from the celestial bodies. Whereas within the globe paradigm, that is not true. The movement of the celestial bodies within the globe paradigm, say for, obviously, Polaris doesn't move and the moon does. Basically, the stars and the sun, they only appear to move within that paradigm.

So they are connected to the globe and its movement. But in reality, on the flat stationary plane I live upon, whatever goes on up in the sky is completely independent to and irrelevant to the stationary plane I live upon. Now, I addressed that earlier and you hand waved it. So stating that I didn't address it is a lie.

Well, it sounds like he has no way to suggest that it's tenable. I do appreciate that Brian has embraced his ignorance and is proudly displaying it for everybody. He wants everybody to know that he's incredibly ignorant about things in the sky and he can't answer anything about how things work at all. He has absolutely no answers to anything in the slightest. Not a good look, but...

For Flat Earth, it's basically just handing over the win because he can't provide any answers at all. So thank you for that, Brian. I don't know why you even showed up. Let me make sure I'm not, I haven't muted you, Brian. Brian, MC Toon asks, why did you show up? Sorry. I showed up. That's not what he asked. That's not what he said, James. You're trying to change it. Why are you helping him out? Why are you helping MC Toon?

James? What?

I need to ask why you're here. Why are you even here? What MCTown did is MCTown was hoping that I would come in here with some stupid model. The problem is, Town, is that you and people like you believe that you know what the celestial bodies are and you know how they do what they do, which you don't know. You don't know. 100% we do. Give me the composition of the sun. Okay, James, hang on. Give me the composition of the sun and how it was established and verified.

All right. That's obviously that's outside the topic. He's trying to, to avoid the topic. Like I said, he's aggressively trying to avoid the topic. The, the composition of the sun is irrelevant to the position of the sun.

which is really what's important here in this. But if you want, Brian, I would be happy to provide you later the history of the determination of the composition of the sun. It's an amazing history full of a lot of wonderful science. It might be over your head. But anyway, the position of the sun, regardless of what makes it output the heat and light that it does, is definitely relevant

relevant to this discussion and the fact that it is a rather distant and the fact that the sun and earth have a relationship and position is important. These things are outlined in in ephemerides ephemerides like a VSOP 87 and some of the ones from the jet propulsion lab and those you can use

in addition to other much more simpler versions, to determine where the Sun and Earth are in relation to each other so that you can determine the length of shadows as they will be on the surface of the Earth. Of course, none of this uses a flat plane.

I want to give you a chance to respond, Brian. I do got to give you both a heads up that because we do want to get Brian out of here by a decent time. Brian, I just clicked unmute so you can speak, respond back for a minute. We will be wrapping up earlier tonight. So it's not going to be a three or four hour debate. We do want to wrap up probably within like 40 minutes or so. So we are going to jump into the Q&A shortly. So probably like 10 to 15 minutes. We will jump into that. Go ahead, Brian.

Yeah, I'm OK for hearing about your supposed answers later. The answers you were supposed to give is supposed to be given now, Tim. But it's OK, don't worry about it. I'm fully aware of the history of the question I asked you. That's why I asked you about that question, because you said that you do know, right, which is a massive claim that you can't back up, as I know, because I know the history. I did address everything here. There's nothing that I didn't address. It's that you don't like the truth of my answers. I've been very honest here.

You want me to come up with some ridiculous model that has no bearing on anything? I'm not going to do that. And what you're talking about when you say that there's no flat plane involved, every single astronomical measurement involves the equatorial plane of the globe at vernal equinox, which then extends the equatorial plane out into the

the celestial plane and sits it stationary with moving celestials above it because they're using using the celestial dome model that's what they're using right that is what is being hijacked for you to create your globe right you're just trying to hijack the celestial dome which uses a flat plane constantly so when you say there's no flat plane involved that's either ignorance or lawyers simple as i'm going to make sure you can speak mc tune yeah all right

Yeah, well, I mean, he made the same assertion as he did before, but didn't provide anything. I cited the VSOP 87, which is an ephemeris of the solar system that gives the position of the Earth and the Sun, the Moon, and multiple planets in three-dimensional space over time. It has nothing to do with the Earth being flat, with the flat plane of the Earth, nothing at all to do with that. And he then asserted that somehow they do,

But I've looked at VSOP 87. It certainly does not include a flat earth in it. So I guess Brian could support his claim, I guess. I'm going to unmute you, Brian. I hope you behave. Why are you saying that to me, James? I'm just teasing you. I don't need someone talking down to me. Do you understand? Don't need help with what? I don't need somebody talking down to me. Do you understand that? Oh, I'm just teasing you. Go ahead. I don't need teasing. Do you understand that?

I'm going to tease you and you're going to like it. Now go ahead and respond to MC2. I don't give a shit about your platform. Okay, good. Now's your chance to respond to MC2 and otherwise he's going to go unresponded to. I'll hang up in a second. It means nothing to me. Do you agree with what MC2 just said? Are you going to stop talking down to me?

You don't realize your friend MC Tune here, but you don't realize is he doesn't understand what I said. So his response to it was I didn't say anything and didn't address anything because he didn't understand what I said. Maybe you should go and speak to Danny Faulkner. He don't understand what I said because he's an astronomer. Now, I would like it. I'd appreciate it, James, if you didn't speak down to me again. Thank you.

We remember when I told MC Toon, I was like, MC Toon, you got to give your brother a chance. I said, MC Toon, you got to give your brother a chance to respond. He didn't get all triggered and I was teasing him, but I'll give you a chance. MC Toon, if you'd like to respond, you can. All he did was cry. So there's nothing to respond to yet. Cry more, Brian. It's funny. Any last arguments you guys want to touch on before we go into the Q&A?

I got to top off my flirftiers here. Hold on. I do want to give Brian street cred because it is very late where Brian is. So my teasing, Brian, it's not meant to demean you. It's purely just like you could say a love language is that I do appreciate you. I do appreciate being here. And I do want to say, folks, Brian is coming in here tonight at a diabolical hour because he's in Europe in particular.

Can I dox you, Brian? Brian is in a brothel in Amsterdam and he's still made it to this stream. So I do want to say thank you. And Brian, that's teasing. Okay. So we're going to jump into these questions. I do want to say folks, you can find Brian and MC Toons links in the description box. And I am going to put a little poll in the live chat asking who you thought was most persuasive in this debate folks. But do you want to say, like I said,

Huge props, because Brian also jumped in last minute. He's like, all right, I'll do it last minute. We're going to jump into this Q&A right now. Felix says, we want serious questions, folks. K044 says, is flat Earth still tenable after watching the sun set and rise every day? I'll give you a chance to respond to that, Brian. I just asked you to unmute. Yeah, I'll respond to that. Yeah, that's a common misunderstanding of the situation. Officially, the sun doesn't rise or set.

It's what's known as the sun mirage that we see at the horizon in the morning and evening. There is no setting sun or rising sun. And the horizon is not the leading geometric edge of the globe. It's an optical phenomenon. The changes of weather, optics, elevation. So it's the meeting of two phenomenons.

the horizon, two optical phenomenons, the horizon and what's known as the Sun Mirage. That's official, that's not me, that's official. Even within the globe paradigm, the horizon is not the leading geometric edge of the globe because there is a constant of always at least seven over and greater than seven over six R present within their paradigm. So the horizon is not geometric within that paradigm. So

Whatever the sun is seeing, even at the horizon, has no relevance whatsoever to do with a globe or proof for a globe or anything else, or this proof of a flat Earth. Because as I said, officially, it's most known as the sun mirage. Now, most people don't know that, especially on the globe side. This one from Jay Bone says, Brian, does a 24-hour sun make perfect sense on a globe? Flat Earthers go to wild lengths with faulty models other than to accept the globe. Occam's Razor.

I have to unmute you, Brian. You don't have to unmute yourself now because during the Q&A, I think it'll be as long as you guys only respond to questions that were to you and not interrupt each other. I'll make sure your brother MC Toon does not interrupt. But go ahead, Brian, if you want to respond to that last question. Well, it wasn't really a question. It's more of a statement based off of someone's belief, religious belief in the globe, uh,

This is another hand wave of what I stated at the start. If there is a 24-hour sun in Antarctica, it has no bearing on a flat stationary plane because it's independent of the plane we stand upon. The flat stationary has no connection to what goes on in the sky. It's only the globe paradigm that inserts that, not flat stationary plane. I don't have my time to say that.

So what it does or doesn't do, supposedly on a globe means nothing to me because there's no globe ever being proven. There's no measurements of a globe ever. So I don't know. Thank you. This one coming in from Tango44 says, what makes MDD think the brain is capable of showing up on time? Maybe his nurse, nevermind that. Tango44 says, this is the problem platforming

All right. Jbone says, Brian, explain 24-hour sun on flat earth. $1,000 says you can't.

Then place an anytime touchdown wager of $10 or more on the player of your choice up to one player per game.

If your player scores the longest touchdown of the week, you'll win a share of the $250K. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. See BetMGM.com for terms. 21 plus only. This U.S. promotional offer is not available in Mississippi, New York, Nevada, Ontario, or Puerto Rico. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER. Available in the U.S. For New York, call 877-8-HOPE-NY or text HOPE-NY-467369. For Arizona, 1-800-NEXT-STEP. For Massachusetts, 1-800-327-5050.

For Iowa, 1-800-BETS-OFF. For Puerto Rico, 1-800-981-0023. Subject to eligibility requirements. Rewards are unrestricted bonus dollars that expire in seven days. In partnership with Kansas Crossing Casino and Hotel. America's Energy Future.

begins now. We have the opportunity to strengthen our economy and reduce inflation, and with this opportunity comes great responsibility. Working together, we can harness our energy advantage and improve the lives of every American. More American energy means more jobs, more security, and more innovation. That's the promise of America's oil and natural gas. America's moment is now. Learn more at LightsOnEnergy.org. Paid for by the American Petroleum Institute.

All right, Brian, we'll give you a chance. Sorry, I muted myself out of habit. I'm always muting after I speak. Explain it. Why would I explain? What are our explanations? What good are our explanations? You have to be able to show. I'd have to know what the sun is and how it does what it does. Well, I already disclaimed it. Nobody knows that.

Not just me, nobody. So within the globe paradigm, people can make claims, oh, it'll do this and that, apparently. You know, it'll do this, that and the other thing. But I mean, if you look at the mounts that were used even during the TFE, they are powered to turn. They're not powered to stay stationary, they're powered to turn, which means the sun is moving and not the Earth.

Wow, he doesn't understand relative motion. What a child. I do. I do understand this. You think I don't. What I just said there, the problem is you don't understand what I just said. You don't understand relative motion. No, within your paradigm, they would only have to say stationary.

No, not at all. Yes, they would. That's a lie about our paradigm. That's not how it works, Brian. That's not how it works. All they'd have to be, if your paradigm is real, all a solar mount would have to be is locked into place mechanically and be on a well-oiled swivel. That's all it would have to be. Well-oiled swivel, that's all it would have to be. What an absolute idiot, Brian. No, it wouldn't have to be power. Wow, you're so dumb. They're actually turning. They're actually turning, yeah.

I'm trying to point out something to him. He doesn't understand. So stupid. All right, let's give Brian a chance to finish. No, you don't understand. One of the dumbest humans ever to laugh. MC Toon, you're interrupting now as well. Yeah. Okay, we'll jump to the next question. My opponent is not understanding this. Within his paradigm, right, the sun is not moving. So a solar... The sun's moving in my paradigm. Why are you lying about it? There is no movement of the sun in your paradigm. Yes, there is in my paradigm. Why are you lying about it? Not from a global position.

Well, why are you lying about it? I'm not lying. That is the paradigm. No, you're lying about my position, Brian. Your, your son is stationary from your position on the doorbell. It only appears to move. No, it's not Brian. Yes, it is. No, it's not. Why are you telling me what I think?

Yes, it is. What's wrong with you, Brian? Yes, it is. Why are you lying? So, okay, you're saying the sun moves. I'm not going to let you just lie about me, Brian. So you're saying the sun actually moves. Yes, I'm saying the sun actually moves, Brian. The sun actually moves. What's wrong with you, Brian? So the sun actually moves within your solar system. Yes, the sun actually moves, Brian. In your solar system. Yes, it actually moves around the galaxy, Brian. Right, so it rotates around you. Can it be seen? No, Brian, the sun actually moves around the galaxy, Brian. Why are you lying about it? Sorry, we're talking about the solar system. Oh.

Oh, you're talking about just within the solar system now? I said solar system. Got it. No, still it doesn't. Still it doesn't. You're doing your best to move away from my solar mount point. Still it doesn't. Because it debunks your globe. Still it doesn't sit stationary in the solar system, Brian. It debunks your globe. Solar mounts are powered to actually turn.

Yeah, you're too stupid to understand relative motion. You're so dumb, you think that's a person on an airplane who jumps against the back of the wall. You're too stupid to understand it. Let's jump to the next one. This is from LJ. They say Nathan Oakley proved Earth's measured flat and level MC tune. I've never seen these measurements. Otto says, I noticed that every flat Earth guy is always parroting

Russian propaganda. Okay. LJ says, how do you know what the sun's made of? You don't, MC Toon. Well, yeah, people do. I don't know why this is a difficult concept. It's not hard to look up. It's covered here. I have a...

I've got this high school physics book here, Open Stacks. If you want, it's free. You can go to Open Stacks' website. You can get the PDF of it or just look it up at their website. It covers the composition of the sun at a high school level. Go ahead and look it up yourself there.

Why don't you tell us all about it, Toon? You didn't want to answer it earlier. Let's go to Artful Dodd Jr. says, Toon, you plan to debate Nico? It's basically sloppy seconds after Fight the Flat Earth just went 2-0 with him, but seeing him face a real Christian should be good, you soy boy. I torched Nico last night. Wow, is that some sort of innuendo? This one from Arnold says...

When is Flat Earth going to do something with their paradigm-shattering science that impacts real life, instead of just pretending to win arguments on the internet, Brian? There's no such thing as Flat Earth science or globe science. There's only natural science. There's no such thing as globe science or Flat Earth science. There's only science, natural science, the scientific method.

It's complete ignorance to think that there's globe science or science for a globe. It's a complete category error. A globe would be a geometric question of what is, not a cause and effect. That's just stupid.

You people don't know what natural science is. That's the problem. That's why you think you have science for things. You just hijacked this. You're like, Tim is laughing now, but Tim literally tried to hijack natural science earlier. You have no idea. None of you fucking flatties have ever done any science. Let me ask you a question then. Let me ask you a question then, Tim. What are the constituent parts of our scientific hypothesis?

how many parts of what brian brian i don't have a religion don't waste my time brian i don't have and do not waste my time i'm about to answer shut your face hole do not waste my time all right brian um james next question thank you no he answers that answer that question i will go jump into the next one i'll gladly answer the question if he's muted so he doesn't interrupt me like an idiot

I just pick white James. I won't have to mute. You won't have to mute me. I just, I don't trust him. I just go, I will mute myself. He's an untrustworthy, worthless human. He just, he just muted himself. So now I have to unmute him. Brian, I do not have a religious dogma like you do about how science is done. Rather, I understand that the core of science as outlined in Popper that I mentioned earlier is,

is having, as its essence, a falsifiable hypothesis. That's it. Everything else you can build around that as long as you have a falsifiable hypothesis. And I have a citation that you don't have. Karl Popper, Logic of Scientific Discovery, chapters three and four. This one coming in from JSS Tiger says, did Brian just debunk the flat earth Gleason map? Ha ha ha. Brian will give you a chance to respond to that.

I just asked you to unmute. Yeah, I have to just address Teun there first. You seem to have moved off away from that, James. Yeah, no, Teun, you weren't, Teun wasn't able to answer the question because he doesn't know. Teun, you don't know what a scientific hypothesis is. You don't know what one is. Show me, showing me a book that says Popper on it is not you knowing what a scientific hypothesis is or what the constituent parts of that scientific hypothesis is. You don't know what you're talking about.

You're a fraud. That's what you are. A complete and utter fraud. Now, it's not my scientific method. It's the scientific method. Not Brian's logic, not flat out, the scientific method. Something you avoid. Something you don't even know. Citation needed. Citation needed. Citation. You used the word hypothesis in that from Popper. So please give me the constituent parts of a scientific hypothesis.

Are you going to answer? It doesn't look like MCTune. Hold on. Let me make fun of MCTune for a second. Looks like, well, MCTune is tongue-tied. You stumped him. Kang044 says, Mike, I would just leave. Brian's intro is just... I said, MCTune, I would just leave. Brian's intro is just so insulting. Brian, is this true?

I don't know. Okay. The Grumpy Old Mechanic says, when do we expect Brian's shattering paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research demonstrating that every relevant scientist on the globe is wrong? That's not science. What he just spoke about there is not science. That's not natural science. That's pseudoscience. What he just spoke about, that discipline does not employ scientific method. So by definition, he just referred to pseudoscience. Shows what he knows.

All right, yes, take that, MC Toon. Thomas Jackson says, MC Toon, please Google and read for Brian the definition of observational experiment. Explain how TFE, a.k.a. the final experiment, falls within the confines of the literal definition. There's no such thing as an observational experiment. Shush, Brian. It was for me, Brian. Brian, little boy. That's a joke. Go on, little boy. It's my turn. Go on, go on. It's my turn to talk, Brian.

All right. Observational studies are research studies in which researchers collect information from participants or look at data that was already collected. In observational studies, researchers follow groups of people over periods of time. This is about social science in here in particular.

Observational study draws on social sciences, psychology, statistics, observational study draws inferences from sample to a population where the independent variable is not under the control of the researcher because of the ethical concerns or logical constraints.

So there you go. Observational science is a fully valid science. Brian doesn't get to tell scientists how to do science. He's not a scientist. He's just a dummy. Could you please read out the part about the independent variable again, please, Tom?

Yeah, it's not under the control of the experimenter because of... Yeah, so it's not a scientific experiment, Dan. Well, it certainly is. It's not. By the people that do science. It's not. It's not a scientific experiment. Brian, you don't get to decide what science is, Brian. It's not me that's deciding it. You're not the final arbiter of science, Brian. It's not you that's deciding it, Brian. Hold on. I have a question.

could i just respond to that there uh because there seems to be something being put forth by by uh my opponent here that the scientific method is something i supposedly made up this is not brian's logic scientific method it's not quantum eraser scientific method it's not the flat out scientific method it is the scientific method citation needed then i saw you want a citation for what

That I didn't make up the scientific method. I need to see all of the scientists in the world that say this is the scientific method. So you want a citation that I didn't make up the scientific method. Brian, I'm just looking for your support. You want me to lay out the scientific method for you? The support for your claim, Brian. You make a claim. Because I know better. You back it up. That's how you do a debate. Do what? That's how we do what? There you go.

You want me to find a citation that only didn't make a scientific method? This one from JSS Tiger says, how can flat earthers show the sun's path from tropic to tropic without a Gleason map?

The Gleason's map just marks points on that, and they call them the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn. It's not the map, it's the latitude and longitude grid, and that's not connected to the Sun. That's connected to Polaris, not the Sun. What the latitude and longitude grid is, is a two-dimensional horizontal grid, and when your coordinates, let's say your latitude and longitude, right there, you are now, James, let's just say, that is in relation to the GP point of Polaris.

It's nothing to do with the sun. These people don't know what they're talking about. Left-handed Jedi says, why can't the flat earth predict sunrises, sunsets, or eclipses, Brian? Sunrises and sunsets aren't predictions. They're neither eclipses. They're cycles. And the eclipses that he's talking about are all flat earth. All the cycles are all based off of flat earth. They're all from Babylonia. That's what NASA used, the Saurus cycle.

So he doesn't know what came. It's just an unbelievable amount of ignorance out there. I'd love to see how the sorrow cycle predicted where I should stand in Texas on April 8th.

Well, I can tell you this much. NASA had to refer to it and change all their predictions because they tried to predict it, because you can't predict it, on a globe. And they had to go back to the Saurus cycle. That's not true. Not even a little. Are you denying the Saurus cycle? Are you denying the Saurus cycle? I asked a very specific question. How are you denying NASA used the Saurus cycle?

Yeah, they don't use it. They use VSOP 87 and ELP 2000. So you're saying they don't use the solar cycle. Let me say it again, Brian. That's completely false. Let me say it again, Brian. Listen up. Shut your face hole. Listen up with your little ears. NASA uses VSOP 87. Don't you speak down to me, motherfucker. I'm speaking down to you, little child boy. Don't speak down to me. Because you don't understand this topic at all. I think I understand it and you don't. You're a hippobotix.

Brian, listen up, little boy. Don't you fucking speak down to me, little boy. Listen up, little boy. NASA uses VSOP-87. NASA used the SORA cycle. ELP-2000. NASA used the SORA cycle. Brian, Brian, Brian, little boy, shut your mouth, Brian. I'll explain it to you. It's on their website, Brian. I don't need your explanation. You're a fuckwit. Brian, shush.

You remember on Jerry Springer when they would say, like, let's go to our final segment. Is that what it was called? Yeah. I don't know. I didn't watch it. I need you to bear with me. We have more questions. They said, why can't Flat Earth... We got that one. Asyntix says, many Flat Earthers believe the final experiment was staged...

and faked some flat earthers are waiting for the rest of the data from the trip to dissect until then everything is speculation mick cartoon did you add that at the end or was that them i added that part at the end okay um yeah we have a lot of data and we are we are processing it and put it together and presenting it in in uh ways that that makes sense i have um

All the data that I took is in this book here, and I have a large amount of it in here. And, of course, we have huge amounts of video data as well. So we had six or seven, maybe even more, cameras doing full 24-hour videos of the sun. So we have a lot of that to go through and a total of about 16 or 17 different experiments that we did.

Thank you. This one coming in from Yadians, says, I admit that the Earth may, in fact, be spherical. Hango44 says, Dr. James, okay, platforming Brian is not a great look. Oh, come on. We have to allow everybody to have their chance.

Awakening Minds says, MC Toon, can you show the audience how the 24-hour sun works on a globe, you soy boy? I've been waiting to see this. How does the 24-hour... Absolutely. Hold on. They said, how does the 24-hour sun work on a globe? Illustration, please. Show the audience. I can do that. All right. So you see the angle here? This is at an angle. This matches the inclination of the globe in relation to the sun. Okay.

And so here's the South Pole. And so I'm going to have the camera be the sun. So you see, try to get it about right here. You see, you're able to see past where the pole is a little bit.

So that's the part of the globe that gets sunlight at this time of year. And you can see, here it is rotating, and you can see past the pole. Now, later in the year when it's like this, well, you can't see it. You never see any of Antarctica. You see that? So that's like in June. But up here, you see on the other side here of...

of the North Pole so the Arctic gets the sunlight. It's an amazing model that's completely correct. Absolutely completely correct. No flaws in it at all. It's amazing. And Flat Earth has no answer for it. Not even close. Nothing at all. So there you go. Thanks for the question.

Fates says, don't let Brian weasel out of the questions. Keep hammering the fact he can't answer any of these without you, James, giving him something to fail to refute. What? I don't know what that means, but go ahead, Brian, if you want to respond. Yeah, I've addressed absolutely everything. I have yet to see how the 24-hour sun in Antarctica, how that proves the globe and disproves the flat earth. When I've

pointed out that it's only, it's a needed confirmation bias for our globe, but it doesn't prove anything geometrically. And it doesn't disprove anything geometrically, especially a fat stationary plane that's completely independent of it. I don't know why people keep on looking, why do people keep on thinking that it proves or disproves something? It doesn't. It proved or disproved whether you would see a 24-hour sun in Antarctica. If you want to say it proved or disproved something, that's about it.

Now nothing has been avoided. Yeah, MC Toon. Stringfellow Hawk says, Brian, do you agree there's a 24-hour darkness at the North Pole at the same time that there's a 24-hour sun at the South Pole? Well, if there's definitely a 24-hour, there's definitely several months of darkness in the North. That's for sure at this time of year. And if what we saw on the video is true, then there's a 24-hour dark-dick sun, whatever.

All right. Very good. Very good. This one from LeftHandedJedi says, thanks for the laughs. I needed it. I think they're talking about you, MC Toon. Kng044 says, Dr. James, do you have to get permission from Brian's? Okay. Why do you do that? Remember, we don't want to read the super chats that are insulting. JSS Tiger, unless they're insulting toward MC Toon. This one from JSS Tiger says, Brian, how is everything south of the equator measured based on elevation angles to Polaris?

There is no Polaris to be seen past the equator because that's 90 degrees. That would be a horizontal measurement. There's a horizontal measured distance between the equator and Polaris of 5,400 nautical miles. Nautical miles are horizontals. They're a derivative of statute miles, which are horizontals.

You're using an elevation angle, which means you're measuring the adjacent. Excuse me, I'm answering the question. You're measuring the adjacent of an elevation angle, and that's what you're measuring. So after 90 degrees, you can't see any celestial body. That's the general rule. The sun might be a little bit different, but after 90 degrees, you can't see the stars, any star, because 90 degrees is your limit. You have 180 degrees of view.

And if a star is the GP of a star or the sun or whatever, the GP of let's say a star is 5,400 nautical miles away from you, you won't see the star. It'll be just on your horizon. If you go past that, you won't see it. What's the geometry for that? Elevation angle, flat plane. No, what's the geometry? Yeah, I just gave it to you. Elevation angle, flat plane. Show me the geometry. Draw it out. Do you want me to get out the algebra?

Yeah, I want you to draw me the geometry. One second now. Draw me the geometry for why you can't see Polaris. I'll get out Georgia Blue. Yeah, at 30 degrees south. It seems like you'll share it here now. One second. I mean, I can draw it on paper. I'm looking for Georgia Blue.

We did put a new poll in the live chat here at Modern Day Debate asking you who you thought was most persuasive tonight. By the way, and yeah, yeah. As Brian looks for this. Yeah, your options are Brian, of course, and MC Toon. And I don't know. And I don't care. I'm a self-loathing soy kind.

I resent the fact that cuck is supposed to be a bad word. I think we're going to take it back and we're going to start using it again in a productive way because it started out as a fun, you know, and then they tried to say it was bad and that it's inappropriate, but we're taking it back. All right, Brian, go ahead. That's it. There's an elevation. That's what it would look like, look like autographically.

Got it. Now show how when you get farther away, it disappears. It goes to zero. How far do you need to go away for it to go to zero? Well, the star doesn't actually drop in the sky. It's only, it's the angular. Yeah, I asked you for the geometry. So show me the geometry. So as you move away, when will it hit zero? As you move back, as you move back, the star appears to go down. Got it. When does it go negative? How far away?

It doesn't go negative. It can't go negative. It's not actually going down. I've already told you that. But it does go negative. It does.

But Brian, it does go negative. When you're at 30 degrees south latitude, the angle to Polaris is negative 30 degrees. That's your crazy religious belief. Of course it is, Brian. No, it can't go negative. But it does. In reality, it does. It didn't actually go down at all. That's the point. You're dragging it down. You're literally dragging it down, Brian. No, that is from the observer's point of view. Everybody sees that. From the observer's point of view. All right, got it. So drag the observer then. Move the observer farther away.

Yeah, the observer goes away. Okay, now when does that angle go to zero? Stop moving the star.

It's not moving the star. But I have to represent it in reality. Now drag the observer farther away. When does that angle go to zero? Keep going. Keep going. Oh, you got to move the star down. But this is orthographic. This is not in reality. You got to move the star down. It's not working, Brian. In reality, it's perspective. What a failure, Brian. Are you saying geometry is falling apart for you, little buddy? So you're claiming perspective doesn't exist.

No, Brian, you're claiming that geometry doesn't work. For Flutter, thank you, Brian. Hold on. Thank you, little buddy. You're claiming perspective doesn't exist. Thanks, buddy. You're moving the star. When I move far enough away from a mountain that the mountain won't appear to change an angular size. That's not what I'm claiming at all. So the angular free space between the star and the horizon

That won't decrease as I move away. Brian, we do. Move the observer so the star hits zero degrees. Sorry, you've got to move the observer so the star hits zero degrees. You can't do it. You can't do it, Brian. You can't do it, little buddy. You can't do it, Brian. Do we see an orthographic view, too? Answer that question, honestly. Do you see an orthographic view? You took the bait, dude. You showed that it's impossible.

I love it. Do we see an orthographic view? So, Tune, do we see an orthographic view? Oh, it's so embarrassing for you, Brian. So you're claiming we see an orthographic view. Oh, my gosh. So that's your claim. You're claiming we see an orthographic view. Oh, my gosh, Brian. So you're claiming we see an orthographic view. Brian, oh. It's like in A Few Good Men, James. Remember at the end of A Few Good Men? How are you claiming we see an orthographic view? James, do you remember that? How are you claiming that? Hold on, Brian. James, do you remember at the end of A Few Good Men? How are you claiming that we see an orthographic view?

We have to move to the next one. Are you claiming we see an orthographic view? James, I want to add a quick aside with you. Are you claiming we see an orthographic view? We have a lot of questions that people are running out of. Well, I want to know if my opponent is claiming we see an orthographic view. James, I think it's fair he should answer this. He has to move the star down. It's great.

Don't let MC2 trigger you. It's only a pound. Hold on, I've got to go to the next one. This one coming in from Brian Peck says, why does Brian think forcefully asserting his ignorance is a valid convincing argument?

I don't know. That's not a question. That's not a question. Find something else. JSS Tiger says, did we already read this one? They said, Brian, how is everything south of the equator measured based on elevation angles to Polaris? That's how we got into this one. Okay. No, the latitude and longitude. I never said anything was measured. Engineering science. I never said anything. One second, James. You're asking me a question. I'm going to answer. I never said... Was that a duplicate? I never...

I never said anything about the measurement of Polaris south of the equator. Yes, you did. I didn't say that. Yes, you did. I never said anything about the Polaris south of the equator. Engineering science. I've never said that. Excuse me, James. Sorry, Tim just claimed that I had said something that I never said. Okay, good. So I might not be allowed to address the question.

Okay, yeah, Brian, I get it. McToon just said something that you, that he said that you said something that you never said. You just pointed it out. And I read that question twice, if I understand right. And so you guys got to respond to it twice. So that's more than enough. Did I, did I read that question twice? Am I wrong about that? Okay, I'm going to unmute.

And I'm going to read the next question. Engineering Science says, Brian, does the hypotenuse... Hang on, James. I didn't get a chance to respond to that. Oh my gosh, Brian. Bro, we've had a million questions. People want to have their question read. You guys had four minutes to cover that question. This one is Engineering Science who says, Brian, does the hypotenuse to the celestial object need to be surface or does the quote line unquote need to be a physical object when it suits the narrative? Go ahead, Brian.

I don't know what he's talking about. It's some convoluted globe mess, right? As the person moves back away from Polaris, a Polaris appears to drop in the sky. As the person moves closer to Polaris, Polaris appears to rise in the sky. Once they're north of the equator. Simple stuff.

It's an apparent thing. Do you understand? Sorry, so tune. And this is for the person in the audience. James, you didn't allow me to address the last question, but I'll address this one. Do the people in the audience and tune, do they not understand that angular, right? The angular height of something is the apparent height, not the actual height.

Do you understand that? Of course I do. You don't understand that. You don't understand that because you don't understand that because you deny perspective. You asked me a question, Brian. I'd love to answer the question. One second. Don't ask me a question, Brian. Don't ask me a question. You don't understand that because you deny perspective very well.

You deny it's perspective. You try to employ that we see in orthographic view. We do not. We see in perspective view. That's not a lie. That's what you try to employ. You try to employ that. So do we see in perspective view? Do you agree perspective exists? As soon as you're muted, I'll gladly answer. As soon as you're muted, I'll be glad to answer. Go on. James, I think we're ready for the next question.

No, he didn't answer. No, James. No, he didn't answer. So he is employing that we see in orthographic. You just say, hey, look, he didn't answer. He doesn't have an answer. I stumped him. Okay. He didn't answer. He didn't have an answer. Ryan, okay, let me read the next question. Truxell says, Toon, no one intelligent enough to have any impact on the world will ever fall for the Flat Earth grift. Advocates for this are either uneducated or just trolling. So why bother with them?

wait that's a good it's a good question they do target uh you know vulnerable individuals and people that that don't have the the background um and they are trying to to get people into politics there have been several people that are i don't target anybody i don't shut up shut up brian you know that's a claim oh my gosh james you're gonna have to i can't this little infant child can't be nobody

I put out videos on YouTube. James, we won't get through super chats if you can't mute him. You've just made a claim about me personally that I target people. We will not be getting through any more super chats if you won't mute him. That's a fucking lie, scumbag. Why don't we...

go to the next question. Mac Taylor is a scumbag motherfucker who makes claims about people personally. Okay, we understand he's a scumbag. Theo Magalhoni says, shout out for, oh wait, by the way, huge thank you to Pastor Duffy for helping arrange this debate. He actually helped coordinate to find an opponent. So we do appreciate that, Pastor Duffy. This one coming in from...

From Theo, mega wordy. By the way, Pastor Duffy has a debate recently on this channel. You can check out. Theo says, shout out from the 24-7 Flat Earth Discord. The sky doesn't decide the ground. Think so? Come see us and give us your logical syllogism of any final experiment observation proving globe earth or disproving flat earth.

Take that MC Toon. JSS Tiger says to all the flat earthers, the tangent line is not the surface. Learn things, anything. Tangent is a term tangent is begging the question. There is no tangent. It's a horizontal tangent.

That's the begging the question. No, the horizontal is not begging the question. The horizontal is what we actually use to measure. Begging the question. We measure horizontal. Begging the question. We measure horizontal distance. Begging the question. Begging the question. Begging the question. Begging the question. That's what you do. Begging the question. That's all you can do. Brian's begging the question. Have you produced any evidence for any evidence that the observation you made

that you made in Antarctica prove the globe or disprove the flat earth? Because I heard nothing at the moment.

Yeah, it went over your head, Brian. Got it. No, it didn't go over my head. You didn't even understand geometry. You think we see an orthographic view and you didn't know what a zenith angle was. All over your head. You didn't know what a zenith angle was. Of course I did. You didn't know what a zenith angle was. I asked you, what's the 77 degrees in relation to? And you said, what's the subtractive form? You said, from the zenith. I got it, Brian. Your butt hurt. From the zenith. You didn't even realize that a zenith angle has the opposite from L.A. Share your pain, Brian. That's 90 degrees. Share the pain. You didn't even realize that it's 90 degrees.

Share the pain, Brian. You're an idiot. You're an idiot. The phone that I use only has an accelerometer, Brian. It has no way to understand horizontal. The phone only knows vertical.

That's what I used to measure the angle. Vertical is 90 degrees to horizontal. You can't have a vertical. But the phone, Brian, but the phone only knows down. That's all it knows. Because it's got an accelerometer to know the angle. That's all it has. It doesn't know horizontal. We do have to go to the next question. Down is 90 degrees to horizontal. You're a bozo. Yeah, I'm C2. This one from Theo says, good to see you, Mark Sargent. We'll see if we can't do some cross promo in the near future. 24-7 Flat Earth Discord, the final proposition.

Monkey Cat Pat Pat says, Brian, please explain the 24-hour sun in Antarctica. All right, we've had this question a million times. No offense. Jaws Incarnate says, I feel I know why they are such silly billies. Jesus would give and kisses. Well, here is a start. Have some pie, four pieces should be enough for you.

GL. What does that mean? Piusari says, for Brian, how were you able to drag this discussion from the final experiment to the same rubbish you predicate every day on your echo chamber? Do you feel useful? I don't have an echo chamber. I don't run a live show at all.

So I don't know what echo chamber is talking about. Number one, number two, I didn't drag it from anywhere. The evidence was not produced by MCTown for the proof of a globe or the disproof of a flat out void, this observation in Antarctica. Nothing was proven or disproven geometrically. So I don't know what he's talking about. Okay. This one coming in from two moments. I'm just a little bit behind here. Magellan says MCTown. Hello from Thailand.

This one coming in from, oh, here we go. JSS Tiger says, Brian, state for the record what your flat earth model is. There's no such thing. There's no globe model. These things don't exist. He can't talk about flat earth without talking about the globe. See that? There's no globe model. It doesn't exist. There's no flat earth model. These things don't exist.

PhD Tony says, MC Toon, are you aware of any professional geodesists, mathematicians, physicists, surveyors, astronomers, or earth scientists who agree that elevation angles require a flat earth? There are, in fact, none that agree. Not a single one. Well, that's funny because my mother's partner is with her geodetic surveyor. He spent three to four decades being a geodetic surveyor.

and he used nothing but elevation angles and triangles 180 degrees. None of them. Yeah, exactly. And geodetic surveyor. But people's opinions mean nothing because facts are facts. So what PhD Tony, what he thinks of what you think and what 10 million other people think mean nothing because facts are facts.

So if everybody thinks... Geodetic surveyors use the globe, little boy. The fact might show that the person thinks it's not. Little Brian, geodetic surveyors use the globe. Consensus is not facts. They use the radius, little guy. Consensus is not facts. There is no radius of the Earth. Of course there's a radius. Geodetic surveyors use the radius when they do their work. They can't use something that can't be...

There's no measurements for it. Give me the original measurement. I did it myself. Give me the original measurement. It doesn't matter. The original is a straw man. It doesn't matter, little boy. Give me the original measurement. The original doesn't matter, little buddy. I asked Jesse Kozlowski and Larry Scott this question.

I asked him for the original measurement some years ago. Jesse Seldenowski couldn't produce anything. It doesn't matter, little buddy. It does matter. You don't need the original measurement, little buddy. If you're claiming a radius, that means you're claiming a measurement. Yes, and I can go do it today. Anybody can go do it

Because there is no such thing as an original measurement for the radius of a global belt. It is a back calculation. You can do it yourself. You don't need to use Polaris, buddy. There is no original measurement because it was never measured. Of course it was measured. I did it myself many times. I'll tell you what geodetic surveyors do. I'll tell you what they do.

you don't know what they do let me they measure i don't know what they do brian yes you're not a geodetic survey measure actually you don't know what they do for their day-to-day work actual zenith angles and then mathematically to try and match those things to a globe uh it's a back it's an afterthought back calculation it has no relevance to the measurements whatsoever all the measurements all the measurements are of a horizontal plane with the topography above and below that

horizontal plane. Yes, they are. Produce a measurement. Produce a measurement for your globe, then. That's not how they do it. Produce a globe measurement. Absolutely. Transcontinental triangulate... I was talking. Shush. Transcontinental triangulation in the American arc of the parallel. No, that was a big question. We went through that already. That's a little more of a shoot.

Shut your face, whole little buddy. That begs the question. That inserted a radius without ever measuring one. I was answering the question and you interrupted me. That's not a measurement for your globe. Does it hurt you in the fields when I can answer the question so quickly and easily? That is not a measurement of the globe. That is an insertion of a radius value without it ever being measured. That's wrong, little buddy. Really? So what tools did they use? They used theodolites. Really? So the drop was what? What was the drop in relation to?

The drop. The drop value that was measured. What's the drop in relationship? What drop? You should read it. What's the drop in relationship? You should read it sometime. What's the drop value in relationship?

Okay. This one coming in from... Yeah, no answer. Yeah, MC Toon. There's no drop. Nothing. So there's no drop on the globe, then? They didn't use the drop. So they didn't measure anything, then? That's not how they did it, idiot. So they didn't measure anything. Brian, I'm trying to insult MC Toon, and you're ruining it. When MC Toon doesn't have an answer, you don't need to, like...

constantly ask. What you should do is just turn to the audience and say, look, MC Toon is stumped. He doesn't have an answer. And then just leave it be at that. But instead you're like, you just drag it on forever. And it's just like, bro, just claim the V, claim the victory and just call him a tongue-tied bastard and say, look, he doesn't have an answer. But instead you just drag it on and on. It's like, I got to go to the next question. These people are dying to have their question read. Okay. I'm going to read the next question.

There is no altitude to the sun. You can't measure an altitude to the sun. All altitudes to the sun are only apparent. Same with the stars and everything else. Once you rise, if I take an elevation angle to, let's just say Polaris, right? I'll use that as the easiest example. If I take an elevation angle to Polaris from 45 degrees north latitude, right, I'll get 45 degrees.

If I rise up in an airplane six miles straight above myself, right? Oh, well, if someone is straight above me six miles up, I can't rise above myself. But right above where I was, let's just say, and I take an elevation angle to Polaris, I will get 45 degrees. So as you rise in elevation, it doesn't change the angle that you will get.

So you can't state a height, an elevation to the sun, an actual elevation in feet and meters, you know, whatever miles, you can't. You can only say an apparent elevation to a celestial body. They don't behave like terrestrial objects. Excellent. We'll jump to the next one. This one coming in for JSS Tiger says, Brian, if I have an isosceles triangle with one angle,

to 96 degrees, what are the other two angles? - Don't care, let's go on. I'm not interested in BS questions. We're not in school here. - All right, this one from Judge Rightly says, "Bad Drivers," says, "Question for Brian. "You claim you don't have a model. "How can you verify and/or know that the Earth is flat "with no model to use to test?"

The measurements of the Earth all show it to be a horizontal plane. Air travel, horizontal plane surveying, celestial navigation, astronomy, all uses horizontal planes. Okay. The Rabbit says, Brian, can you tell us how you beat... Okay, that's just an insult. MC Ross in 8 Goals says, Brian, you say, quote, I have no model. Do you agree that McToon's globe model is the only theoretical model offered here tonight?

theoretical model yes i'd agree it's a theoretical model if you that's about all i'd agree to it's not an actual time it's not an actual model it's not a scientific model every time in theory it's a calculation based on it's a back calculation based off of flat out elevation angles to ballard roadway and it works every time that's what's beautiful about it all right i showed where your radius came from

I'm the one who showed that. I showed exactly where it came from. Exactly how it was calculated. No measurement of that. Here you go. I'll give you one. Jean Picard, 1669, measured the radius of the Earth. Didn't measure anything. 1,371. That didn't happen. Will you stop talking over me? It didn't. You said measurement. You didn't measure anything. Are you trying to stop me? What tools did he use? Are you trying to stop the truth from getting out because it hurts you in the feels, little boy? Go on. Go on. Stop interrupting me. Stop.

Stop interrupting me. Stop trying to hide the truth because it hurts you so much, little boy. Hide the truth. Jean Picard in 1669 measured the radius of the Earth to be 6,371.86 kilometers. I put the link in the chat a little bit ago. It's on page 197. He never measured anything. He can't measure a globe.

If there was such a thing as a globe measurement, I'm in this topic knowing yours. All right. Someone would have produced this. Here's another one. Richard Norwood measured the radius of the Earth in 1633 to 1635. I'll drop the link to that in the chat. Let's go through the process. This one from Buck Saad says, Brian, you promised you would make me famous for giving you the pitch data that you could not find after five years. I am waiting.

No, I said he would become famous because he gave it to me. It's not that I just couldn't find it. It was up to Wolfie for eight years to get it and he wouldn't. And then other pilots wouldn't get it. They just wouldn't get the pitch data. Ping at V says, Brian, radar horizons don't work on flat Earth. The fact that we have radar horizons prove the Earth has a curve.

True. Radar uses angles. It's all Isingbuffer angles. No. It doesn't answer the question. Yeah, it doesn't. Radar has nothing to do with a globe. Run from the question. Okay then, the horizon. Would that be the geometric... Sorry. Can I address that? So would that be... This is for you, Tim. Would that be the leading geometric edge of a globe that you're speaking about, that you're referring to with this man's question?

All you're doing is running there, Chuckles. So would it be the leading geometric edge of the globe? Are you claiming a geometric horizon? So that's what you have to be claiming. So are you claiming a geometric horizon? You can't answer the question. Are you claiming, you know what, radar uses a flat plane. This was proven over and over again. Even by, even through air travel, it's shown to be a flat plane. It cannot use a flat plane. The Earth is a flat plane. You can't not use it. Man, you've got a stupid religion there, Brian. So, Tune, are you claiming the horizon is geometric?

I'm claiming that the radar cannot... I wasn't even done talking. Stop asking me questions if you don't want the answer, little buddy. Don't ask me questions if you can't handle the answer. If the answer hurts you in the feels too much, don't ask a question. So are you claiming the Royston's Geometric, Tim?

Go to hell. Yeah. Go fuck yourself. Okay, good. Let's go to the next question on that productive note. King Ed V says, Brian, okay, we got that. King 044 says, Brian, why do railroad engineering books from 200 years ago reference the curvature of the earth? Why did the construction of the London Underground take the curvature of the earth into account? They didn't. What people say in books and what happens in reality are two different things.

Thank you. Oh, we got that one. Jan Randa says, Brian, you made two videos to debunk the final experiment. Your debunk was based on what model? Why did you delete them? James, please make Brian answer both questions. Okay, so first they said your debunk was based on what model and why did you delete the videos?

I didn't do it. It wasn't based on any model. It was based on the globe paradigm. And I deleted the videos as well as made a community post stating that I was wrong in my premise, that I didn't take the full of the globe paradigm in that nuance into account. I moved too fast and I wasn't taking it serious enough. So because I had it wrong, I openly admitted to having it wrong and I removed the videos.

My community post there, you'll see. And I left the videos up unlisted for a few days if anyone wanted to download them and get the link and download them and do whatever they want. And now they're on private. So I've been totally, totally honest, showing total integrity.

Hang 044 says, James, please read my super chats. Why are they being censored? Are you hosting modern day debate from North Korea? To be fair, I did read your serious questions, super chats, but when they were just making fun of Brian, I just skipped over them. Extra J says, if you have a triangle with sides of one, one, and one, how many sides do you have, Brian? A triangle? You have three sides.

to a triangle. Wow, got that right. Good job. It's a stupid question. If you've... Well, is it working out? They don't know if you can answer these questions. Come on, this is stupid. It's stupid nonsense from you people who think that by being condescending, asking stupid questions to people like that makes you smart. It doesn't. You constantly get your facts wrong. You never admit when you're wrong.

You're constantly doing it. Anytime you've gotten stuff wrong, which is loads of times, Teoan, you've never come out and admitted it, that I'm aware of. Never. When I get something wrong, I admit it. Well, I should point out where I've been wrong. What? Point out where I've been wrong. You claimed that you can bounce. You claimed that the sun was made of plasma and you can bounce radar off of it. Yes, you can. 100%. Right. So the sun is made of plasma. Yes. Right. Right.

And you can better raise that radar off. Yes, you can. You know this, officially the sun, right, within, officially, this is not my claim, but officially the sun is a black body, right? Radar is light. A black body does not reflect light. Radiator. You don't know what the radiator part is. A black body does not reflect light. It absorbs light. Radiator. Radiator. You missed that part.

Radiator. You missed that part. You know I did? You missed that part, Chuckles. Radiator. We got to go to the next question. James, we should move on to his claim that the sun is made of plasma. It's okay. This would have been good during the debate. We have a lot of questions that they still want to read through. Yeah, I know. Sorry.

Bunker says, Brian, why are you embarrassing our flat? Okay. Mr. E-Man says, MC Toon, how many observations matched the predictions, globe predictions?

For the final experiment, every single one of them did with zero exceptions. And the flat Earth predictions that I generated, I queried flat Earthers to correct me if I was wrong. Nobody corrected me and gave the correct one. So I'll take that as an acceptance that I got it right. Exactly zero flat Earth predictions were correct. So batting a thousand for the globe.

Strudel Slayer says, thanks for your kind words, Strudel Slayer says, will the flat earth side ever do a final experiment type of experiment? Brian? What a kind of nonsense. A type of it. The geometry of the earth has no connection in whatsoever to natural science and experiment. No connection. It's complete category error. Natural sciences cause and effect.

What the world is is a what-is question. There are two complete category errors. It's ridiculous to even ask that question. It just shows ignorance. Sphero says, MC Toon, do you think it is sad that flurfs will never understand the beauty of our planet, the incredible work that has taken place throughout history? It is sad. I look at them, at their denialism, at the...

the kind of sad life that they lead where the, the magnificence of the universe is, is rejected. And instead they put them, they trap themselves into this little tiny, uh, prison planet, uh, snow globe thing. And, uh, it's really sad. The, the, the amazing things that, that people can do and figure out and understand about the universe and about the, the world. And they just reject all of it because it contradicts their, uh, their, you know,

Yeah, we reject things like plasmas or solids, like you would have claimed.

You can bounce radar off of plasmas. We reject stupidity. We reject that kind of stupid nonsense. Just dropped a link to the chat of people that actually bounced radar off the sun. Maybe they did, but that doesn't make the sun a plasma. The sun can't be plasma if you bounce on radar. Here's another bouncing of the radar off the sun. Can you bounce radar off a plasma, Tim?

Yes, you can. Really? So plasma is solid enough. Here's another one. So plasma is solid enough then. Yes, it is. Yeah, it is. So plasma is a solid then. No, no, no. No, it's an oil noise gas. So it's not a solid then. Correct. It's not a solid. And it also can bounce.

It also can bounce radar at the same time. It can be both. How can you bounce radar? Show me. I put the links in the chat. Show me a side of your claims concerning the sun. I did. Show me another example where people bounce radar off of plasma. Three links are in the chat. Besides your begging the question concerning the sun. All right. Show me another example of people bouncing radar.

right or radio waves off of a plasma all right there's a fourth link i put it in the chat now this is this is something that's going to be a little me brian please show me please show me another example in reality outside of your begging the question where people bounce radar or radio waves or light at all in any shape for or form off of plasma

Excellent red herring fallacy. No, not at all. You've made a claim. You've made a claim that you can bounce Wader off a plasma. That's an idiotic claim. He's too much of a child. Not a child. You're a child. Guys, I hate to do this. Okay. Nobody's a child except NC Toon. And we're going to go to the next one.

So yeah, like Brian, do you see like I'm teasing MC tune and he doesn't take it seriously. Like it's just a joke. Like, okay. So, um,

Yeah, but James, I'm not here for a joke. This is the thing. James, I normally, since the start of, look, forget it. Brian, you're a joke, Brian. Forget the whole deal. Because this is going nowhere. No, Brian, the entire world knows you're a joke. But just forget the whole deal because this is going nowhere, James. Because even when I try to speak to you, you put your head back as if, oh, it's so laborious to listen to Brian telling me something or asking me a question or anything. That's

It is. Either you want to be here moderating the thing or you don't. If you don't, then just shut it down. I want to be here, but it's just like... So when I ask you a question, why do you roll your eyes to the sky? Because you're a child. James, it's not a joke. It's like, bro, just relax. Listen, I just called MC2. I'm not here to be... I'm not here to relax. We're not here to wear sandals and talk nonsense. I'm

I'm only here because there was a claim, right? There's a 24-hour sun scene in Antarctica that somehow proves the globe and this proves a flat Earth. And I've seen nothing to support that. Okay, duly noted. MC Toon, stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Clarence2AS2 says, can Brian explain how he thinks the Coriolis has an effect on a sun 93 million miles in the globe paradigm? That is the globe paradigm.

claim that we that we're on we're claimed to be on a rotating globe and the sun is stationary but because we're rotating we we perceive the sun as rotating when it's actually us that's the coriolis effect the same with the stars that's not the coriolis that is the coriolis effect that is the coriolis absolute idiot that's the coriolis really please give me the coriolis effect

All right. Mute him first so I can answer without him interrupting. Oh, just be quiet. I don't trust you, little boy. MC Toon, he just muted. Go ahead, Brian, if you want to mute yourself. I will. I'll mute myself and you can unmute me, James. I want him to lay that out. So just so we are clear, he's going to tell everyone what the Coriolis effect is. Go ahead, Melvin. All right.

The Coriolis effect is a lateral force applied to a moving body in relation to the surface of the earth. The magnitude of that force is dependent on, is directly proportional to the velocity of that object and to the latitude of that object.

It is maximized at the poles, minimized at the equator. And for objects that have zero velocity in relation to the surface of the Earth, the Coriolis effect is zero. Okay, we'll jump into the next question. Can I just address that for just very briefly? It's like super brief. That's not the Coriolis effect, what he just laid out there. He actually laid it out. He tried to lay out a force based on, it's a beg in the question of force. It's not the Coriolis effect. It's not the Coriolis effect he just laid out.

Vincent Shatwell says the earth is a stationary plane. Water space is only real in your imagination. It's annoying listening to globe heads debate. They, such as MC McToon, is a liar. MC Toon. Yeah, I would be glad. So my email address is MC Toon at MC Toon dot net.

He thinks that I'm a liar. So simply provide the link to where you think I did that and provide the supporting evidence for that claim and I will issue a retraction. You were lying earlier on. He just has to play this. Just play this. Problem solved.

You okay, Tim? Everything okay? Link to some fading evidence is the missing part. Okay, this one from Pseudoscience Denier says, what experiment was done to confirm relativity, McToon?

Well, there's quite a few of them. So Eddington 1919 is one of the seminal, but there's a long list of repetitions of that going up to 1973 using optical measurements during eclipses, but they've also used quasar or pulsar measurements.

in ultra, very long baseline interferometry using multiple satellite dishes at the same time as these objects emit radiation in the non-optical spectrum so they can measure the shift in position as they approach the sun. They've done that to

stars, thousands and thousands of them in all positions of the sky, including 180 degrees opposite the sun, all matching the amount of predicted shift according to relativity. So that's one of several. So I'll just leave it at that as the first one. There was never any scientific experiments put forward by Einstein for general relativity. Okay. Except for the one I just cited. No, that wasn't. This one from...

Pseudo-science denier says, Looney Tune, okay, they say, because I've never seen a scientific globe model with the real scientific method to reference repeatably. Oh, well, let me, I guess I have to read the insult in order for it to make sense. They say, Looney Tune, is your forehead your globe model? Because I've never seen a scientific globe model with the real scientific method to reference repeatably. Okay.

You have a nice forehead. It is not. I have a spacious forehead. Yeah, definitely spacious. But no, that's not it. I mean, this is a physical model of the Earth right here. It's got no flaws. So, oh, I'm moving it the wrong way. There we go. Moving the right way. There you go. No flaws whatsoever.

Got any flaws, feel free to point them out, MCToon and MCToon.net, and bring citations, of course. Norak says, MC, can I see Polaris sitting or lying in Australia? You cannot. I tried it in Punta Arenas. I could not see it. JSS Tiger says, Flat Earth and Chat can't tell when Brian... Monkey Cat Pat says, Brian...

Thoughts on the moon landing? I need a bingo. Is the moon landing legit, Brian, or is it baloney? It can't be legit. It's claimed to be a violation of entropy. Thank you. It has to be false. It's one of MC Toon's religious beliefs, I know. Vaboyos1 says, Brian, in southern Australia, why is Polaris 43 degrees from the horizon?

43 degrees from the horizon. What's he talking about? Below the horizon. It can't go below the horizon. Of course it is. The horizon is an optical phenomenon. The horizon you're talking about is a geometric edge of a globe. That's not a horizon. You can't even have an horizon on a globe. A horizon is zero slope. So you can't go below something that's just an optical phenomenon. Unless you're claiming the horizon is the geometric edge of a globe. Are you claiming that, Tim?

No answer. Off you go James. The question wasn't from me little boy. Fabios1 says, Brian, in southern Australia why is Polaris, oh we got that sorry, Matmat says why does the 24-hour sun in the Arctic move in the opposite direction to the 24-hour sun in Antarctic? Oh I have no idea. I don't know what the sun is or how it does what it does. I just named that earlier.

So if that happens, I have your superpower. Well, my superpower is just the fact that I am honest, unlike you, who goes around claiming he knows what the sun is, yet he can't support any of it. I put links to the chat. A bullshitter. A bullshitter and a liar. I think five different links I put to the chat. No, no. That doesn't prove your point.

You didn't read them yet, so how do you know? It was not to read. There are only people saying that this person bounced the radar off of the sun. That doesn't prove any of your claims concerning the sun. Are you saying it's fake? That doesn't prove your claim. Your claim that you can bounce radar off a plasma. Are you saying it's all fake? Sorry? Are you just saying it's all fake? No, I'm asking you a question. You made a claim that you can bounce radar off a plasma.

Of course you can. Yeah, nobody has a... Really, show it. People that understand the topic, unlike you. Where did they bounce where off of plasma? People that understand the topic, unlike you. I understand it perfectly. Next question, James. Thank you. Do you want to talk or do you want to... Interruptions. Do you want to go into the history of the composition of the song? James, if you want the Super Chats to continue, you're going to have to...

We got it. All right. MC Toon's theory is the sun is made of shmeg or whatever it was. A-Bates says Theodolite does... I can't believe MC Toon knew what that was. They said Theodolite does measure drop, as Brian said, then measure back the other way. The angles on flat Earth should be 180 degrees, but they are always...

More than 180 degrees at any significant distance. What are? Xenothangles. Reciprocal xenothangles are always more than 180 degrees. No, there's no such thing as reciprocals. That's begging the question. I pulled that apart. I pulled my Jesse Kowalski data apart.

I showed him. I showed what he did. I showed him the deception. It's such a strawcrap. There's no such thing as diverging Zeniths. Oh, my gosh. Verticals don't diverge. I get it. It's against your religion. Let me ask you this then, Kevin. How did they use the process of rise over Rome with diverging Zeniths? They didn't use the process of rise over Rome. How did they use the process of rise over Rome with diverging Zeniths? They didn't. Yeah, because the Zeniths don't diverge. Oh, my gosh, you idiot. That has...

This weird straw man. How did they use rise over run? They did it easy. They didn't use it. They measured an angle. Then they went to the other side and they measured an angle and they summed them and they diverged. Amazing. They diverged. They were not parallel. It proved that they're not parallel.

Because the rise over run, that's what they used for. They didn't use rise over run. They used rise over run. No, they didn't. I know what Kozlowski did. I made a whole video on it, pulling it apart. Obviously, this geometry is way over your head. I showed him a video of fraud. I showed him and Kozlowski and Blue Marble Science to be frauds in my video. I showed it. You don't know how Theatral is. In rise over run, which is part of differential leveling, are all the verticals parallel? No.

I'll ask you that question again. In Reusover Run, which is part of the process of differential leveling, are all the verticals parallel? Are all the verticals parallel? You can't say a topic. Not off topic, it's surveying. This is surveying used practically. Are all the verticals parallel? Are you okay? Are you okay? Maybe you need to look up at the ceiling again. Are you alright? Are all the verticals parallel?

Too stupid to understand this topic. You're a fuckwit. Brian, I gave you the last word. Alex Strand says, Brian, you claimed you can't measure the elevation of the sun. McToon, can you explain why? Make that claim. You're crying out loud, Brian.

They say, "McToon, can you explain why on a flat Earth you would be able to measure the elevation of the sun?" I never made the claim that you can't measure the elevation of the sun. Because it's... I never made the claim. He's a child. Okay, fine. We got it. Yeah, so it's bullshit. I didn't make that claim. Let me finish the question. You never made the claim. Listen, this is complete bollocks at this stage. I can't answer the question. This is only the complete bollocks. Run! Run away! If you think I'm going to sit here and allow you to read out comments that I didn't make...

I'm not. Brian, work with me here. Okay. Listen, look at MC Toon. You're making him happy. I don't give a fuck about your platform. Your platform is fuck all to me. The reason I've never been on your platform before is because you're a bullshit moderator. That's why I've not been on your platform before. Because you're a fuckwit. And so is your other moderator a fuckwit. That's why I don't come on your platform. And because you host fuckwits like MC Toon.

Who's a proven fucking liar? Proven it earlier. That's why I don't come on your channel. It's bollocks. I'm not sitting around here any longer listening to your bullshit. Questions. Okay, we'll go to the next question. Alex Strand says, right? They say MC2. They say MC2. You fuckwit.

Two of you are two fuckwits. Can you let me read the question? I won't. You're a fuckwit. You and Fiona are fuckwits. That's why I don't come on. That's why I never came on here before, James. Because you're a load of bullshit. You're a load of bullshit. You think people are going to sit around and listen to stupid questions like that? That's all you want to do.

Listen, you have to look at the question. Are you okay? Are you hot, too? Now you have to get hot. You're a bit hot there. It's so funny. That's feigned laughter. That's feigned laughter. You're not really laughing. None of you are really laughing. None of you are really laughing. Yes, it's a fake laugh. You're not actually laughing. It's feigned laughter. You need to do that because you don't have anything to defeat anything I have to say.

It's that simple. I'm finding my sentence. It's fame, NASA. You're bullshit. The theory is bullshit. Listen, I agree MC Toon is, but I have to read the next question. Okay, here we go. Yeah, well, if you read out something that's a claim that I said something I didn't say, well, I'm going to say something about it. Okay, I can. Maybe you like being misrepresented. Do you like being misrepresented, James? Maybe that's okay for you. They say MC... They say...

MC Toon Canute. You fucking idiot. You stupid cunt. Two stupid cunts. Two fuckwits. Bullshit. Bullshit debating platform. That's why I never come on it before. I only come on it here because I thought that there was actually going to be, this topic was actually going to be addressed, but it was never addressed. It was addressed.

He never touched it. You did not produce any evidence that the 24-hour Antarctic sun proved the globe or disproved the flat plane. Nothing happened here. Okay. Keep an eye on it. You don't have tears. You're not wiping your tears of laughter. You're not actually laughing, Tim. You're not actually laughing. No, apparently not. You're not. I know you're not laughing. I know it's all false. It's feigned laughter.

It's from Fran. They say MC Toon. Brian. What, James? They say MC Toon. Can you explain why... Fuck directly off. How about that? Why can't I read a question to MC Toon?

I may as well be having a laugh now because you're not taking any, you didn't take any of this serious. So why should I take any of it serious? I may as well be having a laugh. I'm trying to read this question. I may as well be laughing at him. We'll be laughing with you. What's the point? Oh my gosh. None of this.

Kieran, you're not actually laughing. You're not laughing. It's vain laughter. People know when laughter is real. That's not real. Bro, you're destroying this debate. No, you're... There's no debate. This is not a debate. This is not a debating platform. No, of course it's not. This is bullshit. This is a globe. You brought nothing. It's not a debate. You're right. Yeah.

Yeah, all you have to do is produce all the measurements that you don't have. I did! The original radius measurement. I posted it in the chat. It doesn't exist. There's no such thing. No one ever measured the radius. No one ever measured the globe. We got it. It doesn't happen. They asked, MC Toon, can you explain why on a flat Earth you would be able to measure the elevation of the Sun using basic geometry? Yes, yes, of course. So, um...

I live in Minnesota. It's 45 degrees north latitude. On the equinoxes, the sun is over the equator. I personally measured the angular elevation of the sun to be 45 degrees. Hypothesizing flat Earth, that means that the distance between myself and the equator is equal to the elevation of the sun because it's a 45-45-90 triangle. I am 3,501... Whatever. Ha ha ha!

Sorry. 3,000 miles from the equator approximately, which means that the sun on Flat Earth must absolutely, according to geometry, be 3,000 miles in elevation. The problem is you measure that same elevation angle from anywhere else, any other latitude, you get a different value falsifying Flat Earth. So, Taewoon, if you raised up an elevation on the same day, right? Yes.

You went up six miles above your house in an airplane and you took an elevation angle with a Boba Sexton. Would you get 45 degrees? No. You would. You would get a little less. You would get 45 degrees. You wouldn't. You get 45 degrees. That's what you get. You get a little less. That's what you get. That just shows your ignorance. You get 45 degrees. If you're getting 45 degrees from your house...

Then you raise up six miles in the air directly above your house, you get 45 degrees. So fun fact, Brian, I have calculated. Not fun fact, not fun fact. That's just a fact of celestial navigation. I was in the middle of talking, Brian. That is a fact of celestial navigation. I don't need your fun fact. I'm instructing you on geometry. No, I need you. No, you're incorrect, Tim.

What you just said is incorrect. What I just said, the both, all out, you just said a minute ago. A little free education, Brian. A little free education. Hold on. I don't need any education from you. You don't have anything to educate me with. Obviously you do. You don't have anything to educate me with. I've just educated you. Listen up, Brian. I've literally just educated you. MC Toon, go ahead. All right. So...

When I did the computation, I included my elevation in the multiple different times that I've measured the elevation of the sun and the radius of the globe. It does vary a small amount, very small amount in arc second, less than arc seconds,

But that is, in fact, what is predicted by the globe because the sun is extremely far away. And so when you make the change of that angle, it doesn't change very much. If the sun were small and local, if the sun were small and local, then raising...

Shush, Brian. If the sun were small and local, then the sun would have to change in a significant amount as you're raised up. So it completely matches the globe and completely disqualifies or falsifies flatter. So thank you for bringing that up, Brian. Okay. I want to jump into the next question. Brian, I'm sure you've got a response, but I do have to get through these questions. Alex Strand. Oh, we got that one. No, James. No, James. I do have a response.

What Teun just said there was completely false. He doesn't know what he's talking about. So you don't want facts then on your show?

So you don't want facts on your show then? No, I don't. Okay. I have to go to the next question. So you don't want facts on your show? So why am I here then? Explain how... Just for comedy. Ryan, you're here for comedy. How can someone have a debate on your show if you're not interested in facts? As the moderator and the owner of the channel. Guys, you don't have to respond. You...

So you're not interested in facts then, James? I told you I'm not. Okay. But here, obviously I do care about facts. But the point is just that we have so many questions that if you guys give rebuttals to each opponent's answer to a question from the audience, it's going to double the time, obviously, before we get to the last questions.

So that's why I'm kind of like, okay, yes, we know you think MC Toon is wrong. Just launch right into it. Give me the facts for why MC Toon is wrong in his last response. And please do it, Pithy, because I do. We have so many questions and people in the live chat tag me and they go, James, why haven't you read my question? Did you skip my question? That's why I'm trying to rush this. So go ahead, Brian. Why is MC Toon wrong in what he just said? I'll ask you the question I was asking you. So you please tell me

If you're not interested in facts on your channel, then why should anyone come to your channel to debate? I just told you. You said earlier on you're not interested in facts. I was being facetious. Give me the facts on why MC2 is wrong. He can't understand sarcasm. He can't. It's over his head. Why were you being facetious when it was a serious question?

Why are you being facetious when it's a serious question? What's the point in someone coming here? James, it's quarter to four in the morning, right? Here where I am, right? And you think it's funny that someone is here quarter to four in the morning, right? On a channel that you're running as a moderator and you're not even taken serious, whether something is a fact or not. Is that correct? So no one should come to your channel then? Exactly.

He doesn't understand sarcasm. So no one should come to your channel then. James, this is so common. No one should come to your channel, James. Sorry, speaking of James. Sorry, Taylor, I'm speaking of James. So no one should come to your channel then to debate.

That's right. We can state from this point forward that no flat earther should really ever come to your channel. That's right. Can we state that, James? Can we state that? That no flat earther should come to your channel from here on in? Yes, we've already said that. Right, because you're not interested in facts. Okay, that's fine. Well, I'll say goodnight to you then. Goodbye. Ryan, I gotta read the next question.

okay come on okay listen we tried he left he doesn't understand sarcasm poor guy i'm sorry folks i'm honestly i tried it was just i was giving i said give me okay i'm just gonna go to the next question alex strand says um i do want to do me a favor mc toon don't listen

Brian could have responded to these if he stayed. He left. I know it's four in the morning, but he also obviously rage quit.

But I'm going to read these questions because the people did ask them. MC Toon, let's not gang up on him. And let's not say like, oh, well, obviously he's wrong because of this, because he doesn't have a chance to respond because he's not here, even though he raised it. That's fair. So Alex Strand says, Brian, you claimed you can't measure the elevation of the sun. Oh, we got that one. Sorry. Magellan says, Brian, I am a certified in celestial navigation. It uses spherical trigonometry and absolutely assumes a spherical Earth.

You are completely wrong. Okay. Simon says, Thank you. Judge Rightly says, Okay.

King Ed V says, I'm a retired ATC, Brian. Radar takes into account the curve of the earth. And yes, it sees the geometric horizon at the exact distance of a globe. Magellan says, Brian, whenever anything doesn't fit with your narrative, your chatbot-like response is, quote, it didn't happen.

Don Garwell says, the earth is a globe. Just deal with it, Patty. I don't know why he's saying Patty. Andrew Smith says, Toon, I work in plasma systems and we ignite the plasma in a vacuum just like the sun. Each chemical shows its own wavelength. Yet flat earthers say nope. Judge Rightly says, MC Toon, could you give a brief explanation on how a 24-hour sun falsifies the flat earth, thus showing it to be untenable model of the earth? MC Toon, want to give it a shot?

Yeah, I could do that. So there is a little bit of confusion about it because until mid-1800s, the flat earthers thought that there was a universal night and a universal day. And I say until the mid-1800s, basically there weren't flat earthers from ancient times until the mid-1800s for the most part.

and so then row bottom came in with, uh, his new version of it. So we call it robotomism where he says that, that the sun can be above the earth and somehow magically set. There's no actual geometry or physics or optics to explain this. Um,

They just say it. They just say words, right? So in reality, if the Earth were flat and there wasn't a universal night, then the sun could never set. You'd always have the sun up all the time, no matter where you are, because it's high above. It would have to be thousands of miles above. And there's nothing between you and the sun. And there's no geometry, optics, or physics that could cause it to set. So then...

But they say it does set for magic. They just provide the same magic. So, okay, fine. Take that for a moment and put on the, okay, it's magic hat. Now you go to Antarctica and that magic that works, somehow they say it's because it's too far away. Well, in Antarctica, it's as far away as possible, yet the sun doesn't set. In fact, it goes behind you if you're looking north. It goes, you see it due south. I saw the sun due south.

So there is no explanation for flat Earth, for the sun doing circles that direction from right to left in the south and in the north six months later, going left to right in the north. Neither of those, there's no one explanation that works for that at all if the Earth is flat. Thank you. This one from Dom Garwell says, Brian, would you take a zero gravity flight FTE2? Yes.

This one from Obi-Wan says, Brian, at the beginning you made claims measuring distances and time zones and then say no one can measure the radius of the globe. How did you do your measurements? He at the same time claimed we cannot. Reg Joe 23 says, good job, Brian Logic. MC Cartoon still wait for those curve measurements any day now. MCToon.net slash curve. A whole bunch of them there.

You can see all of MC Toon's curves at his webpage. MC Toon slash OnlyFans. Darkstar4400 says, for Brian, plasma, when dense enough, will reflect radar. This is established physics. Let me go to... Let me just check for any last questions. Folks, I'm sorry. I didn't mean for Brian to leave. Obviously, like...

I can't even remember what the last thing was that he was unhappy about. But, man, it's like we don't hold any grudges. And I don't know. It's hard to do this sometimes, to be honest. But anyway, this one from let me just get to this next one. OK, here we go. Jarski says, Brian, what events do you have that Earth does not spin?

Ex-Penguin95 says, please point out that Brian's denial of accepted science is not a refutation of them. It is a rejection of science and is a dogma in its own right. AtomicAriel says for Brian, how could firmament affect 24-hour sun?

Lord L. Amanis Poo says, I'll tell you what I want, what I really, really want. So tell us what you want, what you really, really want. I'll tell you what I want is evidence, Brian. Ascent Nick says, why did everyone live stream always from the same locations in South America and Antarctica, even though there were other places to live stream from? Sus. Max. I can answer. That's to me. Okay. We, we didn't always live stream from the same place. We were, um,

When we were in Antarctica, ALE, the organization that hosted us there, that helped us get there, they set up for us a remote station away from the main camp because at the main camp, it's near a mountain. So at...

And between 2 and 3 a.m., the shadow of the mountain would cast over the camp, at least in the early days we were there. So we moved out to this station that they had left up for the marathon. It was the halfway point of the marathon, so we called it halfway point. So they had a building there. They had bathrooms. They had solar panels so that we could have electricity. They had a generator, but we never used the generator because there was always enough light there.

for the solar panels. So that's where we were. And we had a star link, uh, there that will brought. So we had really good internet access there. Of course, star link is using satellites bouncing our signal off satellites. And so we had to be within a wifi range of that star link access point there. So that gave us, you know, a little bit of a perimeter to do live streams from there. But then back at camp, we were on alleys, uh,

Not their, their also had a Starlink. So we had to be respectable. We had to respect their bandwidth because there's other people there. So to do a lot of live streaming from there is a little bit, um,

you know, selfish. So we did, we did a little bit of live streamers. I know Jaron did a live stream from there. So, and then in South America, I did one from my room. I did one from the main floor of the hotel. I did one two different times outside the hotel on the, the, the waterfront. I don't know why that's a thing. There's nothing sus about that. So yeah.

This one from RegJoe23 says, Brian there to debate. Hoon is there to crack jokes. What a clump. Yeah. Brian didn't come to debate. Somebody will come up with, I'll read a little bit from this and you got a couple of super chats up. I'll cover that. HangatV says, wow. Let's see. I don't know what that means. Abate says, Brian, if the earth is flat, why is it not possible to have three sextant measurements from different latitudes at the same time triangulate the sun?

Jarski says, how do we have atmosphere pressure if gravity isn't real? Binge Thinker says, get well soon, James. Thank you for your kind words. Gold Dinger says, Brian, where did the priest... Okay. Atomic Aerials says, how... Okay. Theo Megaworthy says, the Earth is flat regardless of Brian's quote-unquote behavior. We got just a few more here. Pardon my...

I'm working on it. It's been a long day. J bone says, Brian, don't ever debate again, man. Okay. Retro bills is James. This is the most unprofessional and lamentable debate moderator performance I've witnessed in over 10,000 debates. Not a serious channel. Wow. You've watched 10,000 debates. That's a lot, but can I address this one? Sure. So I'm, I switched my camera. You see the, this book I have here.

The Debater's Guide, fourth edition. This is mostly about Lincoln-Douglas style debates, but it's very pertinent to this. And once I read this, you'll see that Brian wasn't here to debate. So what can you do? It's a joke. The three burdens. The debate, the debater should understand the

Three more terms at this point. Burden of proof, burden of rebuttal, burden of communication, burden of proof. Burden of proof is a primary rule of argument or debate. It first requires the affirmative to bear the burden of proving the proposition, which I did. Subsequently, it requires every speaker to support every assertion made by that speaker, because any assertion must be supported by proofs. Those who assert must prove is a fundamental and long-standing rule of every debate. Now this, this is...

Right here. This is kind of the essence of debating. Brian did not come to do this. This was not. The commenter here is correct. This was not a debate. Brian had no intention of debating. He has no intention of supporting any of his claims. He just says Earth is measured flat and expects that to be accepted blindly by everybody. So I will say that, again,

I'll say that James, you know, in one essence, this wasn't a debate. This was a time to laugh at Flat Earthers' inability to debate. This one from Max V says, James, this is the most professional and wonderful debate moderator performance I've witnessed in over 10,000 debates. Such a fun channel. Thank you for your kind words, Max V. Yeah.

We do want to be professional in the sense that one, you know, like we can't let there be too many interruptions because, you know, if somebody is just bullying the other person in terms of their time,

they where they aren't able to speak their fair share of time well then it's not fair right it defeats the purpose of a debate um and then obviously like you know us keeping our promises so for example like i told mc toon earlier today i said bro i'm like sick as a dog and i said i i'm going to try to get ryan to do this but ryan was just wiped out so i did it to keep the promise

But in terms of like professionalism, in terms of like, oh, James said cuck, like it's just not a big deal. And we're just we're not uptight. And it's not your grandma's debate channel. Like the debaters are going to use personal attacks or ad hominems. And it's the other debaters responsibility to call that out. If you want a moderator that will call that out, yeah.

go to another channel, go make your own channel. In fact, and it will probably be the most boring channel in the world. Like at least we let things be organic here. We don't like put the debaters in a straight jacket and say like, Oh, you can't call the other person a moron. Like we just let it fly. Uh, judge rightly says bad drivers says MC tune. Thanks for answering. My question was not expecting that extra bit of history. I don't know what that was referring to.

This, I think we caught up. So let me just double check in the live chat if there's any last questions that I missed. I want to say thanks for your support, folks. We will let our debater go. And thank you MC Toon for being here. Thanks again to Pastor Duffy for helping arrange this debate. And yeah, I want to say it's been fun. I really have no hard feelings. You can find

Brian's logic link in the description box that includes at the podcast. Um, and, uh, yeah, so I highly encourage you to check that out and, uh, yeah, but yeah, thank you MC tune for being here.

Oh, last but not least, before we close out, there is a poll in the Modern Day Debate live chat on who you thought was most persuasive tonight. If you want to tune in at the Modern Day Debate YouTube live stream, that will be up for a few more minutes. But thank you, MC Toon, for being here. All right. Thanks a lot. Glad to be here. Thank you. I'll be back in a moment, folks. Let me just...

Pull the plug on old MC Toon here.

Log in to your BetMGM account today and opt into the promo. Then, place an anytime touchdown wager of $10 or more on the player of your choice, up to one player per game. If your player scores the longest touchdown of the week, you'll win a share of the $250K. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. See BetMGM.com for terms. 21 plus only. This U.S. promotional offer is not available in Mississippi, New York, Nevada, Ontario, or Puerto Rico. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER. Available in the U.S. For New York, call 877-8HOPE-NY or text HOPE-NY.

Taxes was feeling so stuck.

Sitting in traffic, squeezing into a parking spot, all to squeeze in getting tax help during your lunch break. Now Taxes is a TurboTax expert who does your taxes for you while you go about your day getting real-time notifications about their progress and the most money back guaranteed. Now this is taxes. Intuit TurboTax. Get an expert now on TurboTax.com. Only available with TurboTax Live Full Service. Real-time updates only in iOS mobile apps. See guarantee details at TurboTax.com slash guarantees.