Possibly The LAST FE Debate on MDD, Ever | Nathan Thompson Vs Will Duffy
02:26:48 Share

Bettering your business takes working with the best. With the James Hardy Alliance, you gain access to leads, training, networking, and support from the number one brand of siding in North America. Achieve new levels of success by joining the James Hardy Alliance today. Our debate proposition is, did the final experiment end flat earth?

I will be defending the affirmative that yes, the final experiment of 2024 ended flat earth. My opponent, Nathan Thompson, will be taking up the negative and attempting to argue that a flat earth is possible despite the numerous observations and experiments we conducted while in Antarctica and Chile.

I need to point out here that Nathan Thompson was told that since I am the creator of the final experiment, I'm only interested in debating TFE. And most importantly, our debate is over whether or not the final experiment has ended flat earth, which means our debate has nothing to do with the globe or the globe model.

Our debate proposition is not, did the final experiment prove the globe? No, it's did the final experiment end flat Earth? So I will be arguing that the final experiment trip and accompanying experiments and observations are not possible on a flat Earth, and therefore TFE has ended flat Earth.

And it will be Nathan's role to argue that TFE's experiments and observations are possible on a flat stationary plane and that flat Earth has survived. Now, if Nathan goes off topic and talks about the globe, I will hold up this globe to remind the audience that he is no longer debating the topic that we agreed to ahead of time. And I will bring the debate back to our agreed upon topic

and refuse to allow him to deflect in this manner. If Nathan decides to keep evading our mutually agreed upon topic, that should send a very clear message to everyone watching that he is unable to reconcile TFE's observations and data with a flat Earth. When I created the final experiment, I set out to end the debate over the shape of the Earth.

And I believe TFE has been incredibly successful in this regard. As evidence of this, there is currently a major exodus out of Flat Earth, starting with Amaral from Canada, who was one of the first Patreon supporters of Eric Dubé. He saw the writing on the wall when Eric Dubé did not share his excitement about TFE going to Antarctica.

Eric Dubé said for years that there is never a 24-hour sun at any time in Antarctica. Dubé also correctly asserted that the heliocentric globe model must have a 24-hour sun in Antarctica. Yet Eric Dubé did not think it was a good idea to travel to Antarctica to see which side was correct.

And he even turned down an offer to have his trip to Antarctica paid for by a glober named Mark Harmon. Next is Jaron Campanella from the YouTube channel Jaronism. Jaron was one of the fortunate flat earthers who received a trip to Antarctica on my dime.

And Jaron not only saw the 24-hour sun with his own eyes, but was also honest enough to admit that he had been wrong about the 24-hour sun and therefore wrong about Flat Earth. Next is Alex Stein. Primetime 99 Alex Stein has been in the Flat Earth community for a very long time, including participating in many debates on the topic on the Modern Day Debate channel.

Alex Stein was also offered a free trip to Antarctica from political commentator Tim Poole, but elected not to join us. And although he did not join us, he has done the right thing in accepting the evidence and firsthand testimony we brought back of the 24-hour sun in Antarctica and now acknowledges that flat Earth is false.

Next is Robbie Davidson, who runs the very popular YouTube channel Celebrate Truth, which has over 150,000 subscribers. He is one of the OG Flat Earthers who has really been around since the beginning of the modern-day Flat Earth movement. Then there is Nick Havoc.

He had been a flat earther for nine years, but is now so thankful for the final experiment, which has brought him the truth, so he no longer has to believe and defend a lie. Then there's Mellow Dome, Austin Thompson, Stefan Driver, Shifty Eyes Shady, Rose Triple Seven, David Conklin. There was even an entire small flat earth group who all gave up flat earth after TFE.

The list goes on and on. There are far too many to name, and there are many who have asked me to not mention their name. This exodus will continue until a flat earther can show how TFE's experiments and observations can work on a flat earth.

But instead of doing this, the flat earth community as a whole is taking the position that we did not actually go to Antarctica or that we did not see the real sun or that there is no 24 hour sun in Antarctica, despite the fact that we all witnessed it with our own eyes. They are arguing that we were in a giant studio filled with LED screens or that the sun was created with a giant laser pointer to fool us.

And Dean Odle actually argues that Satan was behind the 24-hour sun, possibly becoming the sun itself in order to fool us. What the flat earth community is lacking and what is continuing to fuel this major exodus is a complete lack of any intellectual, logical, and rational responses to our trip

to Antarctica and Chile? Will Nathan Thompson be able to reverse this trend? Will Nathan Thompson be able to make sense of our experiments and observations on a flat earth? Because that is Nathan Thompson's specific role in this debate, to show how all of these things we observed and captured and experienced can work on a flat earth.

Here are just some of the observations and experiments we conducted for TFE in both Antarctica and Chile.

First is the 24-hour sun. The sun never set the entire time we were at Union Glacier Camp, right at 80 degrees south in Antarctica. For years, the flat Earth community was adamant that there was not a 24-hour sun in the south, in Antarctica. This rejection was fueled by the fact that a 24-hour sun in Antarctica is not possible on a flat Earth.

And this is because flat earthers say Antarctica is not an island continent at the bottom of a globe, but rather a massive ice wall that encircles the world's continents and holds in all the oceans. If Antarctica is this giant ice ring on the outside of our known world, the sun would have to rise and set each day as both sides agree that the sun moves through the sky once every 24 hours for everyone on Earth.

In December of 2023, this is a year before TFE, there was a debate outside Nashville, Tennessee, between Dean Odle and Greg Locke. The next day, there was a post-debate Q&A at a nearby hotel. And the room was filled with Flat Earthers, including Dean Odle, Flat Earth Dave, Austin Witsit, Joe Hanvey, and my opponent, Nathan Thompson.

The first question at this event was about Antarctica and the 24-hour sun. After Dean Odle confidently stated during the debate that a 24-hour sun would mean we live on a globe, Joe Hanvey spoke up at the Q&A and said he had a friend in Antarctica at that time, and she told him there was not a 24-hour sun, and the sun rose and set each day. Shortly after this, my opponent Nathan Thompson was given the mic...

And he said he used to run the largest flat earth group in the world for six years. And it was after he asked Globers to show him the 24 hour sun in Antarctica that his group was deleted and he was censored. This resolute position by the flat earth community that there was no 24 hour sun in Antarctica was because they knew it was not possible on a flat earth.

In addition to the 24-hour sun in Antarctica, there is also a 24-hour moon in Antarctica. This is not possible on a flat Earth for the same reason that a 24-hour sun is not possible. Up next is the South Pole. We have not released our video on the South Pole yet as part of our channel's The Final Experiments series, but we actually had someone at the South Pole at the same time as we were at Union Glacier. And there cannot be a South Pole on a flat Earth.

And I'm talking about a geographic South Pole. On a flat Earth, the cardinal direction South is all directions away from the North Pole. And therefore, the South on a flat Earth gets bigger and bigger indefinitely, and lines of longitude would get further and further apart. This means they would never converge into a single point in the South like we see in the North with the North Pole.

Up next is the South Celestial Pole. We both observed and filmed the South Celestial Pole while in Punta Arenas, Chile. A celestial pole is a point in the sky that the stars appear to rotate around in a circle as they move through the night sky. For the same reason you can't have a south pole on a flat earth, you cannot have a south celestial pole in the sky over a flat earth.

And it's worth noting that the 24-hour Sun, the 24-hour Moon, and the South Celestial Pole all move in the opposite direction that we observe them in the North. Also impossible on a flat Earth. And finally, we have southern flights. Flights far south on a flat Earth, for example, south of the Tropic of Capricorn, would require completely different flight paths that are actually experienced by passengers on these flights.

They would also be of much longer flight lengths than flights in the north. As we already mentioned, a flat Earth pushes south to the outside, and distances on a flat Earth get further and further apart the further south you go. YouTuber Critical Think, a glober who was with us for the final experiment, flew home from Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia nonstop after our trip to Antarctica.

And he filmed the entire flight, and it was just over 13 and a half hours. Not only that, but his entire flight from Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia was over ocean. After leaving South America, the flight flew over no major landmasses, including flying completely south of New Zealand before landing in Australia. This flight is just not possible on a flat Earth. Thank you.

Thank you very much for that opening statement. And I want to let you know, folks, if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, I'm your host, Dr. James Coons. We are a fully neutral debate channel. That means only debates, no interviews, with fair moderation as well. We hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you're from. Don't forget to hit that subscribe button.

right now as we have plenty more debates coming up in the future that you don't want to miss out on. With that, we're going to kick it over to Nathan for his opening as well. Thank you very much for being with us as well, Nathan. The floor is all yours.

Thanks so much for moderating, James. Congratulations on the channel just exploding. I remember when you had 20,000 subscribers back in the day, so it's nice to see you doing well. On top of that, Will, I really sincerely appreciate your stunt that you pulled there in Antarctica because since then, I have multiple social media platforms doing over a million views a month.

because I've been talking about Flat Earth for 10 years, dude. It's my bread and butter. I eat, sleep, and breathe Flat Earth. Guys, I've done over 200 meetups. I used to run the official Flat Earth and Globe discussion before it was censored. We had 155,000 members in there. We didn't allow cursing. We didn't allow insults. We just got down to business, answering questions. So if you guys have questions, ask them in the Super Chat. We'll get to them at the end. Please share the show. Really appreciate that. But yeah, thanks, Will, for your stunt. It

Just Flat Earth is absolutely exploding on my social media platforms now. Thanks to you. Really appreciate it. So Will's opening was lots of talking, not a lot of proof seized. I would have liked to see more proof of the globe or that the final experiment ended Flat Earth, but all we got was talky-talky. You'll see a difference with my presentation. I'm going to actually pull up images and show evidence to support my claims that his stunt didn't debunk the Flat Earth.

Now Romans 8.28 says, all things work towards good for those that love the creator and are called according to his purpose. I've been featured in hit pieces where globers try and prove the globe and it always backfires on them because all they do is make flat earth more popular and it's true. So when it comes to flat earth, any publicity is good publicity. I learned about biblical cosmology from a guy named Michael Lavery, who was my brain coach for 10 years. We were studying applied neuroscience and

steroidogenesis, neuroplasticity. And one day he says, Nate, you ever look into flat earth? And I just about dropped the phone after he told me he spent seven months looking into it. I thought he was going to say, oh, I heard about it Tuesday. So the smartest guy I know, been looking into it seven months. I didn't sleep for three days. Then I went and got a camera. The camera I got was a Nikon P900. That's this camera right here. But this camera has been converted to infrared. It's what the military uses to see super far. Then we uploaded

upgraded to the P1000, which is 125 times zoom. Technology has far surpassed the globe lies and the globe religion. So I spent about a week on the beach debunking the globe. Then I started the official Flat Earth and Globe discussion. I've been doing meetups ever since. A couple months ago, someone called me and says, Nate, I got an RV. Do you want to go around doing interviews, gathering products for a website?

doing meetups like you've been doing. And so now I'm in an RV with Gio and we've got all sorts of stuff from the community like flat earth, Gleason map blankets, some coffee here from Baraplegic. If you don't have the flat earth, sun, moon, and Zodiac clock app, download that. The referral code is Neo and you can get tinfoil hats at bonafidetruth.com. And if you need to find any of my social media links, bonafidetruth.com forward slash Nathan. Now,

Let's get right into it guys. If I could get the share screen ready for you. Excellent. Thank you so much. All right. So if we lived on a globe and I know he's going to hold up his little sign, go ahead. This is the curvature rate for the globe. It would curve in all directions like a ball, eight inches per mile squared.

or 0.666 feet per mile squares that will give you 66.6 feet of drop over just 10 miles but from mile 40 to 50 you're talking 600 feet of drop because it's exponential now

We were told that boats go over the horizon and that's the curve of the earth. Well, the horizon formerly known as the curvature of the earth is not physical or geometric. If you read Phil Metzger's book on the art of perspective, it says, what is one point linear perspective? And it details the horizon versus eye level. And it says in the railroad picture, you can see where the flat land meets the sky.

That imaginary line where the sky meets the land is the horizon. So on a globe, we would have a physical geometric horizon at 1.22 miles times the square root of the observer's height and feet. So for a one-foot observer, it's 1.2 miles away. For a six-foot observer, it's three miles away. Now, this picture on the right is...

One foot observer, horizon should be 1.2 miles away, and the horizon is past 9.5 miles. So we don't have a physical geometric horizon. This is a famous picture from Joshua Nowicki from 57.25 miles, should be about 2,000 feet of drop. Now, the tallest building in this picture is 1,350 feet. I actually took this picture from Kenosha in a helicopter with the infrared P900 from 51 miles away just when we got above the treeline.

and the entire skyline was visible, none of it should have been visible, should all been obstructed by the imaginary elusive curvature that can never be found. Here's six lighthouses that should all be obstructed by curvature but they're clearly visible because the earth is flat. Here's Mount San Jacinto, visible light, Mount San Jacinto with infrared. You can clearly see it, 123 miles away.

We've also got videos of the Cannego Mountains, the sun setting behind them. No curvature on the surface of the earth. So I don't know why we're pretending that going to Antarctica and looking at the sky is going to somehow end the argument about the floor. Here we have world record photograph, 275 miles. Bar de Crens should be 50,416 feet of missing curvature that we can't find. It's very elusive.

Can't find it anywhere. Then you've got microwave repeaters. You've got radar systems like the SPS 55 goes 190 kilometers over 100 miles. Search and rescue. We've done laser tests. You can zoom in on distant objects. They're clearly not obstructed by curvature. Now, I'd highly recommend, guys,

Test all things and hold fast to that which is true. Once you go flat, you never glow back. Be the change you want to see on flat earth. The truth is incontrovertible. Malice is going to attack it. Ignorance is going to try and deride it. But in the end, there it is. And you can lead globe earthers to flat water, but you cannot get them to put their sign down and think critically about the shape of the earth. That's all I got, James. Thanks so much.

Thank you very much for that opening statement. What we are going to do is kick it into the open dialogue. Before we do that, just a couple of other housekeeping things. First, if you haven't yet, please do hit that like button. We appreciate your support. And if you are watching live, this is your opportunity. Modern Day Bait has just put a poll in the live chat. This is a great opportunity to vote on whether or not you think the earth is flat, lobe, or flat.

You are unsure. With that, we'll get an open dialogue. Thanks very much, gentlemen. Floor is all yours. Sure. Hey, Nathan, you just false in your opening statement. I'd like you to correct it. You said once you go flat, you never you never glow back. Would you please correct that right now?

No, yeah, when you go flat, as far as like testing the Earth yourself, I know you might have some flipper floppers that haven't tested the Earth themselves for 10 years like I have. But once you do that, there's no way you're going to go back to believing you're on a cartoon ball because strangers went to Antarctica and looked at the sky. Hey, Nathan, I know your personal friends with Jaron and Robbie, and I really don't think you should do this to them right now. Were they true flat earthers? Because they're not anymore.

I don't care what some dude thinks about the shape of the Earth. Do you have any evidence for your globe relation, bro? Nathan, you made a false statement. You said once you go flat, you never globe back. That's false. Your own friends, Jaron and Robbie, are no longer flat. Will you please correct your false statement right now? All right. So are we going to move on to the evidence that the Earth's a globe or not?

You're off topic, Nathan. That's not what this debate is. Off topic. We're not here to talk about what people think the Earth is. Okay, so you won't even correct your mistake. That's really sad. Okay, so Nathan, let's start with an easy one. Were you aware that while we were in Antarctica, we live streamed? Yes, I was aware there were live streams being done. How did we live stream from Antarctica on a flat Earth? Please explain that on a flat Earth. So you can only live stream on a globe? How did we live stream on a flat Earth, Nathan?

This is your job in this debate, is to argue how what we did and what we observed is possible on a flat Earth. How did we live stream on a flat Earth? Please tell me. You had six arguments. Live streaming was one of the six arguments. So if you could stick with your arguments that ended flat Earth instead of just...

Nathan, this is part of the final experiment. How did we live stream in Antarctica? Please answer. Okay, live streaming from Antarctica wasn't one of your six arguments. You talked about a 24-hour sun, a 24-hour moon, a celestial south pole, a south pole, airplane flights in the south. If you want to stick with your arguments, I can talk about how those are affirming the consequent fallacies and red herring fallacies.

But I how you live stream from Antarctica the same way I'm live streaming right now we have internet it's 2025 but how did we get internet in Antarctica Nathan. The same way I'm getting internet right now on a flat earth. How, I don't know I wasn't there. How did we have internet in Antarctica.

So, James, he's asked the question like five times I wasn't there I don't know how he got an internet in Antarctica that wasn't one of his six claims for. Okay, so, so Nathan, you know that the flat earth position is that internet comes through under sea cables.

Is that your position? No, definitely not. It comes through a multitude of ways. It's a collective ensemble of things going on. You've got undersea fiber optic submarine communication cables. You've got towers. They normally put them on mountains. And the microwave towers have a Fresnel zone. And that Fresnel zone has to account for obstruction like trees and buildings. But one of the most famous videos I had on my old YouTube channel before it was erased by your government overlords

was a microwave engineer talking about how he doesn't account for curvature sending microwave signals over long distances. Okay, so we were at 80 degrees south, so there's no undersea cables, and there were no towers. There's no cell service in Antarctica. So do you have any idea how we could have got internet? Yeah, they might have bounced it off the dome, bro. I don't know. I wasn't there. Is that all you got? Okay, so that's the easy one. Now we'll get to the hard stuff. There is a south pole.

I'm sure you've seen people take a picture at the South Pole, right? I haven't been there. Have you been there? Have you seen people take a picture at the South Pole, Nathan? I haven't been there. Have you seen people take a picture of themselves standing at the South Pole, yes or no? Going to an icy wasteland and calling a place the South Pole and then taking a picture there doesn't prove you're on a cartoon spinning tilted ball wheel.

So, okay. What's your next one? Nathan, I need you to do me a favor. It's too easy. Let's go chop, chop. I need you. I need you to do me a favor. I need you to tell me where on a flat earth, the South pole is where they're taking their picture with that pole. Where is it on here?

Okay, see, what you do is you just go to a spot on the flat Earth that's a deserted, icy wasteland, and then you call it the South Pole, and then you get global globers to go there and take a picture in front of the sign that says, this is your globular South Pole, and then you pretend that that's how it works on a globe. Okay, so Nathan, that pole that they're taking a picture with, where is that on this map? I don't know. I haven't been there. You have no idea where it is? No, I don't know. I haven't been there.

Okay, so I'm afraid you're not very well researched then because the South Pole in Antarctica is one of the main differences between Flat Earth and globe and you have no idea. So if you wanted to get to the South Pole, you have no idea how you'd get there. No, I've never been there. So did you go there? I've not been there either. You haven't been there. I haven't been there. But guess what, Nathan? Guess what, Nathan? We're not going to say that a place doesn't exist if we haven't been there, right? Have you been to the dome?

No, I haven't been to the Dope. Okay, perfect. So don't use an argument with me that you wouldn't use for yourself, okay? There is a pole, Nathan, that people can go to. Guess what? They fly there and they take their picture with it. I want to know where that is on a flat earth. Can you reconcile a South Pole with a flat earth, yes or no?

Yes, I just detailed how you go to a specific icy wasteland, you put up a sign for gullible globers that says, this is your globular South Pole that you're upside down on. And then you take a picture because you're a gullible glober and you think that proves the shape of the floor that doesn't prove the shape of the floor well you're going to need better proof than this bro no one's.

No one's buying this, bro. Hey, Nathan, you're off topic again. I'm not here to prove the globe. We're here to see if the final experiment observations and experiments work on a flat earth and you're not showing how they work. So go to the South Pole. Hey, hey, Nathan. Hey, Nathan, we we had someone at the South Pole and you have no idea where that is.

Yeah, it's an icy wasteland. They put up a sign that says, this is your globular South Pole, and then gullible globers took a picture there, Will. Is this all you got? Is there anything else there, or is it just a pole? I don't know. I haven't been there, Will. Okay, so you haven't done research. Okay, so Nathan, guess what? There is a station there. It's called the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. It's massive.

You say so without ever being there. That's cool. So Nathan, you're going to have a very hard time defending flat earth. If you can't even show where this location is that people visit that my friend visited and, and, and, and took information for us from the South pole. So we're going to go ahead and move on because you have failed at reconciling a South pole with a flat earth.

All right, next we're going to talk about the South Celestial Pole. Are you familiar with what a celestial pole is? Yeah, are you familiar with what a red herring is? Okay, so if you're familiar with what a celestial pole is, can you please explain how there's a South Celestial Pole on a flat Earth where the stars go in the opposite direction than they do in the North? Yeah, no problem. James, can I get the big screen, please? Crystal clear. You go to Google, right? Okay.

If you go to Google and you type in red herring fallacy, a red herring fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone distracts from the main topic of the argument by introducing an irrelevant topic. What's the topic of the debate? What's the topic of the debate? You're in it. I'm still talking, bro. Can you chill with your Tourette's? You need to tell me what the topic of the debate is before you can establish that I'm going off topic. What is the topic?

You're talking about the topic is did the final experiment and flat earth, which has to do with the ground and you're talking about a celestial South Pole. Part of the final experiment was documenting the South Celestial Pole. The South Celestial Pole is not possible on a flat earth. Your job is to show how it is. Can you do it? Yes or no? Yeah, what'd you document? Let's see it. You haven't seen the videos that we have of the South Celestial Pole? No, I haven't seen them. You haven't shown anything either, bro. Are you going to show anything? Sure.

Will it change your mind? Well, it depends on what I see. Okay, give me one second. Take your time. We're going to get shown something. Finally get some showtime, bro. Oh my God, a story time. Ears are going to start bleeding. I am a little surprised that you're taking this position that there is no self-celestial pull or that I need to show it to you first, but that's okay.

You said you documented it. I'd like to see what you documented. That way I can detail how this is a red herring has nothing to do with the shape of the floor. That's not the topic of the debate, Nathan. Yeah, you thought your final non-experiment ended flat Earth, which is the shape of the floor, Will. There you go. South Celestial Pole. Those stars are rotating in the opposite direction of the North. You took that in Antarctica? Robert Schwartz did.

Okay, cool. No problem. Thanks for showing me. Now, can I get the big screen again? Am I still in it? Can you reconcile the South Celestial Pole with the Flat Earth, yes or no?

A logical fallacy that occurs when someone distracts from the main topic of an argument by introducing an irrelevant topic. Now, the stars have nothing to do with the shape of the floor. Even Einstein has something called a kinematic equivalence. The Ptolemaic model explained the movement of everything in the sky.

for 1400 years and was unchanged for 1400 years. Now I'd like to stop sharing my screen and show you my watch. It's the Prague clock.

They had this Prague clock built 610 years ago, which predates the gravity religion by 200 years, 1666. There's that 666 again. But they had all this mapped out for 1400 years on the Ptolemaic model, what was going on in the sky, assuming a flat Earth. You could also celestial navigate, getting angles to these stars and the sun, and then navigate the oceans, assuming a flat Earth. So this sky argument really isn't helping your globe religion.

and it's a red herring. So, next. So, Nathan, you should have done a little bit better homework. I even told you the topics that I was going to be covering, so you could have researched it, you could have watched our videos, but you are not explaining how the South Celestial Pole can exist on a flat Earth. We observed it. It's a natural phenomenon, so we know it exists. So the real question is, can you reconcile what we observed with our own eyes, what we filmed, with a flat Earth, yes or no?

Yeah, I got this flat earth dome I picked up from Joe Hanby. We can actually show star trails in the north and star trails in the south and 24 hour moons in the south and 24 hour suns in the south and rainbows and halos and sun dogs and eclipses. And just about everything you see in the sky can be modeled right here or at least shown a physical representation of. So yeah, I'm very familiar. You're going to try and end flat earth.

Hey Nathan, I'm very familiar with Joe Hanvey's model. I actually offered him to demonstrate it on our channel, which he declined. And I've refuted his model. So when it comes to his model and the celestial poles, his south celestial pole is a reflection of the north celestial pole. But in reality, there are different stars and different constellations in the south versus the north. So it cannot be a reflection of the north.

So that doesn't work. Do you have any other way of reconciling it or no? I didn't say it's a reflection. I don't think it's a reflection. And when we project it on the top of the dome, it's not a reflection. So what's showing up in the south if you're only projecting stars to the top of the dome? All right. I know you want to play 21 questions about the sky. A reflection of those stars.

It's not a red herring. It's on topic. So we can move on. You're failing miserably here. So what about the 24 hour moon in Antarctica? Can you explain that on a flat earth? Yes, of course. No problem. Take it the big screen, James.

Sweet. So if you Google affirming the consequent, it's a logical fallacy where someone assumes that because the outcome of a conditional statement is true, the condition itself must also be true, essentially reversing the logic and leading to an invalid conclusion. The fallacy of affirming the consequent occurs when a person draws a conclusion that if the consequent is true, then the antecedent must be true. So just an affirming the consequent. Okay. So I'm,

Thanks for showing that. I'm actually not doing that. So all I'm doing is presenting an observation that was made and filmed in Antarctica, and I'm asking you to show if it's possible to happen on a flat Earth. I'm not doing anything like that. Yeah. The 24-hour sun and moon can be modeled right here with the dome. You had one job, Nathan. Joe Hanvey's model is that it's a reflection.

Is that what you're saying? Are you saying the 24 hour moon in Antarctica is a reflection of a moon somewhere else? Now you should go watch this. Because remember, Joe Hamby's model, Joe Hamby's model uses a flashlight. The moon is not like the sun so that his model doesn't work for the moon. So can you reconcile a 24 hour moon in Antarctica on a flat earth?

What the sky does and what's happening in the sky does not determine the shape of the floor. It's another red herring talking about the sky and pretending you ended Flat Earth. Thanks for playing, Will. Well, the reason I ended Flat Earth, Nathan, is because you nor the entire Flat Earth community can explain these things that I'm telling you. Like, for example, they can't explain how we got internet in Antarctica. It's very simple. We got it from satellites, right?

So this isn't good. This isn't good. Explanations are not proof, Will. I don't know if you know that, but you can walk down to a local tavern, find the local village idiot, and ask him anything under the sun, and he'll give you an explanation for a pint. That doesn't mean he's true. That doesn't mean he's right. Okay? Explanations are not proof. So you sitting over there,

Asking 21 questions about the sky and saying you don't have an explanation for the sky doesn't end what the floor is, bro. You've got to be joking. But it's probably reasonable, right, for him to ask for an explanation where he's saying, hey, this seems this, let's say, evidence A seems less probable on a flat Earth than a globe Earth. It's reasonable for him to ask how you would explain it, right?

So I do want to, if you're willing to engage in terms of trying to give an explanation. I haven't seen it. So he went and saw it. Good for him. Looking at the sky doesn't determine what the floor is, James. That's all he's got. Great. Excellent. We can just move to Q&A. No, I've got more. I've got more. It's great. I'm enjoying this thoroughly. Okay, excellent.

Okay, cool. Great. All right. All right. I will. I'm just going to recap for the audience. So we don't know how you can get internet in Antarctica on a flat earth. We don't know where the South pole is on a flat earth. We don't know how there can be a South celestial pole on a flat earth. We don't know how there can be a 24 hour moon in Antarctica on a flat earth. Let's talk about the 24 hour sun. So Nathan, will you at least admit that you were adamant that there was no 24 hour sun in Antarctica? Yeah.

I didn't know. I'd never been there. Nathan, that was not your position. That's false. You never said, hey, guys, I don't know if there's one or not. I haven't been there. You joined the rest of the Flat Earth community in saying there isn't one. And the reason you guys were so adamant is because it doesn't work on a Flat Earth. Yeah, I would have thought that there wasn't one because every time I posted in the group for six years, if any, are you all right, bro?

I'm great. Every time I put the group for like six years, if any Glober can show me evidence of a 24 hour sun in the South, because there's thousands of videos of it happening in the North, that would be really great. I'd really appreciate that. And no one ever did after six years of me asking. So.

I was led to believe that it didn't happen. But if it does happen, that's cool. We can already show a physical representation above a flat earth of how it happens. So... Okay, so... I'm not going to talk about the floor at all this debate. Okay, so let's talk about the 24-hour sun. Again, Joe Hanvey's... Joe Hanvey's model fails big time. So were you aware that the 24-hour sun that we filmed and saw in Antarctica...

made a wave pattern through the sky that it changed elevation consistently. It would go up, then down, then up, then down.

What the sun does in the sky has no relevance to what the earth is or the floor is underneath your feet. I've looked at the floor with high power zoom cameras, infrared telescope, land surveying equipment, mirror reflection test, laser test. You don't live on a curved pair or a curved ball. So asking me 21 questions about a place I've never been and what happens in the sky there

is making you look silly, Will. One question. I think some people in the chat are confused because they're trying to understand. Nathan, would you say that a 24-hour sun is a problem for the flat Earth? Would you say, no, actually, it's not a problem. We have this explanation. Here it is. Or would you say we don't have an explanation?

We can show a physical representation of a dome and how you can get a 24-hour sun over a flat Earth with a dome. So no, it's not a problem if he saw a 24-hour sun. Okay, so Nathan, here's the issue. People have noticed, and I brought this up to Joe Hanvey, and a lot of people have brought it up to him.

that he's not putting the camera inside the dome. He's putting the camera on the outside of the dome to get what might look like a 24-hour sun. But if you put the camera inside, you would never see it. So that's actually a false model because we were not outside of any dome. We never saw any dome. And there was no camera outside the dome. Our cameras were all in Antarctica. So his model doesn't even work.

If he were to put a camera on the inside of his dome, there would be no 24-hour sun. Now again, Nathan, did you notice in our videos that the sun made a wave pattern through the sky? Because Joe Hanvey's model doesn't do that.

What the sun does in the sky over a place I've never been has no relevance on the floor that I've tested for the last 10 years and just showed you about a dozen evidences. It's not curving in all directions. We don't have a physical geometric horizon. We see way too far. Thanks for playing, Will. Okay, Nathan, I'm happy to move on. Let's talk about southern flights. So Critical Think flew nonstop from

From Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia. Can you please explain how that flight is possible on a flat earth and where the path of that flight travels on a flat earth? I don't know. I haven't taken that flight.

I just test the floor. Well, that's what I do. But I do have pitch data from a two-hour airplane flight, United Airlines flight. Here's the pitch data. If anybody needs it, send me an email, flatearthflyers at gmail.com. But the pitch data shows that the airplane flew straight and level for two hours. Now, if you do the math for the globe religion, after two hours of flying straight and level, you would be 120 miles above the surface of the Earth. You could almost stop at the ISS and

and pick up those stranded actor knots if this was the case guys but yeah we got the pitch data the attitude indicator only works if the plane is flying straight and level over a flat non-rotating earth and the faa trains pilots on the target generation facility which is a flatter simulator that negates rotation and negates a gravity vector so airplane flights aren't doing your curve any justice

Okay, Nathan. So you went off topic again. We're talking about a very specific flight that's part of the final experiment. You have not explained how that flight works on a flat Earth. And you actually just said something completely false. Number one, the FAA does not train pilots. So you should stop saying that. Number two, pilots do not train on a target generation facility. That's false. Where did you get this? That's completely wrong.

Was this from TikTok? Federal Aviation Administration assumes a flat earth when training pilots and air traffic controllers using their target generation facility. The TGF consists of several software programs that control simulation scenarios using simulated aircraft. The TGF computer simulator drive almost all

almost all of the air traffic control laboratories of the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center. The FAA states, our lab has worked closely with the TGF group to have aircraft perform the way air traffic controllers would expect them to behave in a real natural airspace systems. What are you reading from? This is from The Greatest Lie on Earth by Edward Hendry, and it has citations from the FAA website.

Okay, so number one, the FAA does not train pilots. You are incorrect. They certify pilots. They don't train them. Number two, pilots are not trained on a target generation facility. That's for air traffic controllers. That's not for pilots. If you go find a pilot and ask him if he was trained on a target generation facility, he's going to say no because they're not trained on a TGF.

So you should just correct that going forward because it's wrong. This is one of the issues that I found in the Flat Earth community is they don't do research with people that might disagree with them. All the Flat Earth community had to do was reach out to Antony Powell or Robert Schwartz about the 24-hour sun, but they refused to do that and took a position that there wasn't a 24-hour sun. If you just reach out to a pilot and talk to him, he will tell you what I'm telling you.

Okay, so just whatever a pilot says, we'll just believe that. Excellent. Okay, so back to the topic of the debate. How can you please explain how a nonstop flight from Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia is possible on a flat Earth?

Yeah, of course. If you look at the pitch data, which I'll put back on screen, I don't know, maybe you weren't paying attention. The pitch data shows that they fly straight and level the entire duration of the flight. They also have an attitude indicator, has a gyroscope inside. The reason they use a gyroscope, because it keeps its rigidity in space. Once you spin that thing up, it stays on that plane of rotation. And so if we were flying around a globe,

which is a cartoon, by the way, guys, the orientation of the gimbal base would change with respect to the gyroscope. So, and we got the pitch data too, bro. So thanks for playing. So I'm talking about a very specific flight here. And the reason- I don't have any data for the flight. So you're just asking me a question. I gave you the answer. If you don't like the answer, run home to mom, bro. I don't know what to tell you. Would you like the data for the flight? The show that we live on a cartoon globe? Would you like the data for the flight?

If it shows we live on a cartoon globe, then I would love to see it. Okay, so Nathan, the reason this flight doesn't work on a flat Earth is because it's so far south. It begins and ends south of the Tropic of Capricorn. As I mentioned, a flat Earth pushes the south out indefinitely, so distances get far.

This flight is impossible on a flat Earth because of distance, and the time that this flight happens, which is about 13 and a half hours, is also impossible on a flat Earth. So can you reconcile that flight with a flat Earth? Yeah, of course. There's no curve. You're talking about the sky again, bud. It's a red herring. Are we going to talk about the floor at all this debate, Will, or not?

Okay, so I gave you a list of the things that I was going to be presenting that I don't think you can reconcile with a flat Earth. You have not attempted to reconcile them with a flat Earth. I am completely content to go to Q&A at this point. Excellent. If I could do closing arguments, James? We hadn't talked about closings, but if you guys mutually agree, I'm open to having closings. Totally fine. Maybe something like three or five minutes.

Yeah, whatever is great. You got it. All right. I'll go first in the closing. Great. So again, all of his arguments had to do with the sky. And he thinks looking at the sky is going to prove what the floor is. Now, I've looked at the floor for 10 years. I've used every piece of optical technology you can find, get your hands on, to look at the floor.

The floor isn't curving. The Bible says test all things and hold fast to that which is true. I've done that with the floor. So asking me about a 24-hour sun in a place I've never been isn't going to convince me what the floor is. I've tested the floor. Asking me about a 24-hour moon in a place I've never been isn't going to convince me what the floor is. That's, again, the sky. Asking me about a South Pole that you've never been to doesn't convince me that the Earth is curving in all directions. It doesn't end flat Earth.

Thanks for playing. Asking me about a Southern Celestial poll is a red herring argument. You're not even on topic anymore. You're not even talking about the floor. You're off in La La Land trying to Jedi mind trick gullible flat earthers that will listen to what you're saying.

I'm not a global flatterer. I was looking forward to some evidence. You didn't have any evidence. You had a lot of talking points, a lot of story time. I put up 12 images or so that debunk the cartoon globe religion. Anyone can go test it themselves. And thanks for playing well. I really appreciate your time and thanks for all the work you did making my YouTube views and my Instagram views and my Facebook views explode through the roof. Keep up the good work, bud. Cheers.

We'll kick it to Will for his closing as well. Okay, great. So I actually, just so everyone knows, I sent Nathan the list of what I would be talking about so that he knew exactly what I'd be presenting. He would have an opportunity to watch the videos on the TFE channel and know exactly the arguments I would be presenting. As I predicted, which is why I made this, he would not be able to reconcile...

the observations and experiments we did in Antarctica and Chile with a flat earth. Now, this is why there is a major exodus right now. I haven't even gone public yet that have contacted me and will go public soon is because there are no answers to this. And so real truthers are going to look at the evidence and they're going to see the truth and the reality of, uh,

What we saw and they're going to see that it simply doesn't work on a flat earth and those of and the truth is that are willing to look at it and see the truth of the matter are going to leave flat earth.

like Jaron, like Alex Stein, like Robbie Davidson, and so many others. And so this discussion tonight is a perfect example of how certain people will react when they don't like new evidence that's presented to them that contradicts a belief that they have. And so that's kind of where things stand. And I'm really glad that we did this.

And I just hope that people will be able to see that the Flat Earth community does not have answers for what we brought back. And so I think that the final experiment has definitely ended Flat Earth. Thank you.

Thank you very much for both of those closings. We're going to jump into the Q&A and fact, folks. So we're going to try to move fast. If you guys, gentlemen, because we do actually have a lot already, if you're able to keep your rebuttals to a very slim minimum. Otherwise, if we have rebuttals on each question, we have trouble getting to the other ones down in the list later on. So this one coming in from...

Kang044 says, here's my contribution. Thanks for your question, they said, for Nathan. Explain how the sun was up for 24 hours in Antarctica, but for the rest of us, me in New Zealand and you in a trailer, it observably continued set and rise. Is there more than one sun? Is the sun a conspiracy?

You know, I think the sun's speed, its position, its size, and its path is all apparent. It's not actual. You're not looking at a goodness, gracious, great ball of fire in the sky. The sun on the globe religion actually violates the second law of thermodynamics because you can't have gas pressure without a container. Space is fake. The sun is actually in the firmament, like Will's Bible tells him. But, I don't know. I guess Will doesn't want to read his Bible about what the Earth is. This one coming in from LJ says...

Will never provided the 24-hour live as promised. We have a chance to respond.

Sure. This is a falsehood that's being spread around the Flat Earth community. Don't believe me, though. Ask Austin Witsit. Ask Jaron Campanella. Ask Lee Spethacosta. We never said we would be able to do a 24-hour live stream. We weren't even sure we'd be able to live stream. I purchased a very expensive Starlink unit, a maritime unit. It was $5,000. It barely fit in my suitcase. I

to hope that we could live stream at all. So we never promised that. And that unfortunately is a, is a falsehood being spread in the flat earth community. This one come. Artorias says, Nathan, how many elementary school? Let's see this one from Yalda Boath. We're looking for serious questions. They say flat or round is still a Masonic prison. Either of you know what that means? This one, yeah.

From Yalda Boath says, it's the public. They say, Nathan looks like a January 6th pardoned criminal. You weren't there, were you? This one from Bernham says, put this toward, let's see. Thanks for your kind support. Mr. E-Man says, Nathan, does Nathan know that flat earth is what is making average people like me feel smart and give intelligent people a good laugh?

Oh, I thought the screen was frozen. All right, this one. Keng044 says, Prediction. Two minutes into Will's opening statement, Nathan will just go to his script. This one coming in from DoAppreciated as well. Mr. E. Mann says, Got that one. They also said, Never buy or use the Sun, Moon, Flat Earth clock app. It is insecure and collects data that can be accessed easily.

This one from Heven Stocking says, stop dodging the 24-hour sun, Nathan. Explain it or game over. What the sun does, it has no relevance on the shape of the earth. You can test the earth yourself, guys. Large bodies of water do not curve. I think they're saying, earlier it came up, where I think you were saying, hey, flat earth can give an explanation for a 24-hour sun. Like, we can explain that.

I think they're saying give us the how. Like, how does it explain it? I don't know. I didn't make the sky and haven't seen it yet. So hopefully looking to get down there this year. Once I see it, then I'll worry about explaining it. Okay. King over forces. Nathan, you showed lighthouse in your presentation. What? Why do we have lighthouses?

Yeah, we have lighthouses so boats don't collide with the shore. And the lighthouses, even though they're only 150, 200 feet tall, their light can be seen 40 to 50 miles away. There should be substantial amounts of curvature over 40 and 50 miles, making a 150, 200 foot tall lighthouse obstructed. They wouldn't even work on a globe. They only work on a flat Earth. Thanks for playing. This one from Booba Sweat says, did Nathan get a chance to shill his merch yet?

That was earlier in the debate, actually. Kang 044 says... Can I say something about that? Yeah. Nathan, I am just disappointed that you're still peddling Gleason's map. Gleason's map contains a lie on it, a falsehood here. In the lower right, it says there is no 24-hour sun in Antarctica. So if I were you, I would stop promoting something that's completely false.

Okay, well, the Bible says do not take counsel from the ungodly. Well, and sorry, Bob, I'm just not taking any advice from you, but I appreciate the consideration. This one from Artoria says public service announcement down in the rabbit hole. Do I remember? Is that what dearths? Do I remember the name of it? Thank you.

They say their app is unsecured and is still leaking personal data. Do not download or log in. If you have logged in, be sure to email him and ask to have your data deleted. Booba Sweat Strikes Again says, oh, we got that one. Kangle44 says, Nathan was your proof that the earth is flat. You selling merchandise.

I don't even say we have blankets that Steven Alonzo offers. We have paraplegic. He's a veteran paraplegic. And I help him sell this coffee. I've spent, if you look at my cash app, like $800 of my own money on his coffee. Cause I just think it's good coffee. These are not my products. This is not my merchandise. I'm just trying to help people in the community make more money because then we can do more stuff and debunk the globe further.

Megan Marie says, Earth is a globe, but tinfoil hat is sick. Kang044 says, Nathan, was it hard that this time you couldn't just do your script like usual? I don't know. I did my keynote speech, the same one I pull up every single time, so I guess he's wrong. You've been debunked. You're saying, no, I did do my script this time. I got my script.

They say, Nathan, this was hard to watch. Pair better next time. Booba Sweat strikes again and says, Nathan, if you're willing to pair it, wits it. You need more word salad. Ooh.

This one from Rossinate says, if I actually examine what would be visible on my flat earth versus what actually is visible, that might cause me to doubt. So I refuse. Nathan, I think they're saying this is you. Yeah, I know. A lot of coping globers in the super chats.

King 044 says, Nathan, we don't need to go find the village. Okay, we got that. Only joined to troll. Thanks for your question. Says, holy smokes, Nathan. Never debate anyone ever again. You lack any, I have to read some of them. You lack any conversational skills whatsoever and don't deserve to be on this platform. Terrible attempt. This one from Matt says, oh gosh, Nathan, you got ruined.

By Mark Reed and now by Will. When will you stop debating because you obviously aren't good? Oh, geez. You have to make it personal. Okay. Mr. E-Man says, has Nathan ever observed New Zealand from where he is, though?

I think they're saying, Nathan, you talked about New Zealand at some point in the debate. And they're saying, well, hey, you know, you kept saying like, oh, I've never been to Antarctica, so I can't really answer questions about it until I've been there. And they're saying, but wait a minute, you talked about New Zealand. And have you ever been there before? No, I haven't been to New Zealand, James. Why do you keep turning your camera off? What are you doing over there?

This one from, I don't want to know, ZumaRace says, Nathan, do you believe in celestial navigation? Because that debunks your statement of what is measured in the sky. Believe in celestial navigation? No, celestial navigation happens on a flat Earth because they use triangles to triangulate using the sky, assuming a flat Earth. It only works on a flat Earth. Thanks for buying. This one coming in from...

The Turk says, what does the floor look like in Antarctica? How about the shadows on the floor? The shadows did a 360, which is not possible on a flat Earth. This one coming in from? Wait, hold on. You don't think a shadow could go around someone on a flat surface? Are you serious? But Nathan, you. Not all 360 degrees, like from a 24-hour sun.

We do want to limit the rebuttals. This one from The Wicker Man says Nathan Thompson equals Pee Wee Herman. Will Duffy equals Mike Tyson. God bless you, Will. Nathan is only here to sell hats, not debate. Wait a minute. Nathan was... You get the tinfoil hat. Okay, gotcha. Thanks. This one from...

How? Yarhilda Boath says, no, so Nathan shouldn't believe in the resurrection because he wasn't there. That's why it says the just will live by faith. Got to go look up what the word faith means, bud. Next. I don't, but wait, did we, forgive me, because I don't know if we ever, did you answer the question about New Zealand though? Like if you, if you talk about New Zealand. I haven't been there.

Did you talk about it earlier in the debate? I think they're saying that you did. And they're saying, but how could you talk about it then if you don't know, like if you haven't been there? No, I didn't talk about New Zealand earlier. That's what I'm coming in from. Delta Boat says, so Nathan, muck gum, says Nathan, can you show any of these physical demonstrations you keep claiming you have, show in detail how it works, not just assertions that it works. So I think they're looking for that like connecting piece, like the how behind these things.

claims that certain things fit on the flat earth. Yeah, I just picked up the dome like three days ago from Joe Hamdy. I'm here in South Carolina where he lives. So I'm going to get better at working on it and modeling stuff on it or showing representations of what we see in the sky. But if you need, go tune in to Joseph Hamdy's channel. He's doing it all. Interesting. This one coming in from Much Gum. Appreciate your question. The Turk says, airplanes fly over the floor. Explain the path.

I don't know who that's for, though. They didn't say. It's a really good question because we know the path, the paths of flights. We know them through flight tracking and we know them through looking out the window and seeing where you are. Are you over are you over an ocean or over a continent? And so this is why I don't think Nathan or any flat earther can make sense of that nonstop flight from Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia.

Hang on for forces Nathan instead of looking at the floor for 10 years. They say did you drop your ball. Maybe you should have looked some looked in some books instead. Mike drop Alex Strand says, Will. Do you think Nathan mentioning red herring is a red herring or deflection.

Yes, it was, because what I was talking about was the exact topic of the debate, and it was the information that I told him I would be talking about before the debate. Yeah, just because you tell me your argument in advance doesn't make it not a red herring. So go look at it. It was on topic. So it was about the final experiment and our observation. So it was on topic. It was not a red herring. Looking at the sky is not on topic for the floor and what the shape of the floor is. Will, thanks for playing.

Just to be sure I understand, but was there an agreement that only things like the only thing that would be covered tonight would be things that had to do with the shape of the floor? No, Will sent me six arguments in advance. They all had to do with the sky. So I patiently waited for this debate so I could laugh at him. He didn't have any arguments pertaining to the floor. Except for the South Pole, which you had no answer for. You haven't been there.

Give me a minute, bro. You're talking about Narnia, a place you believe in because someone put a sign up in an ice wasteland. New Zealand exists even though you haven't been there. The South Pole exists even though I haven't been there. Cool story. Or is New Zealand a myth too, Nathan? Are you going to bite the bullet on that one? Okay, this one. Variety. I got one.

I got flatter trends down there. Let's not go nuts. They say, Nathan, are you saying that airplanes only travel in the direction the nose is pointed? They routinely nose up when they are landing on a runway. Based on your assertion, it would still be climbing.

If they routinely nose up, then they're not routinely nosing down to go around a cartoon globe. You just debunked your globe with that question. Thanks for playing. But just to be sure of the question, because I don't know if that was their question, though. I think they're saying, are you saying that airplanes only travel in the direction the nose is pointed? Yeah, the airplane cannot travel in the opposite direction than the nose is pointed. That's not how they work.

But I think they're saying it's an empirical fact that people could look up on YouTube. That's what they're saying, at least. They say that planes routinely land or their nose is actually pointing upward as they do land. They fly the entire duration of the flight with the nose slightly pitched upward. But what glovers need is the nose coming down around a globe, but they fly the entire duration of the flight with the nose pitched up two to four degrees.

Just to be sure, though, you said sometimes they fly the entire duration of the flight with the nose pointed up. Does that include the descent where they're moving downward, the opposite direction of the nose then? Yes, they just tilt the nose up a little bit more, and then they slow the plane down, and that causes them to drop in altitude. But they are pointed nose up the entire time, so not going down around a globe, nose up.

This one from Mr. Eman says, when Nathan states that all optical observations do not confirm a globe Earth, he is ignoring all reciprocal zenith angle observations. The reciprocal zenith angles are measured from the horizon. The horizon is not physical and geometric. We've debunked that notion. So measuring angles to a non-physical, non-geometric horizon that changes hour to hour and day to day is ridiculous. Thanks for playing. Drew says, Nathan,

I think they're, let me just double check. They're saying aircraft maintain altitude via pressure set by altimeters. Stop using angels BS. Neither of you know what you're talking about. High altitude equals lower pressure. You wouldn't quote fly into space unquote.

Yeah, if you fly straight in level on a globe for two hours, which is what the pitch data shows, you would be 123 miles above the surface of the Earth. That's pretty much halfway to the ISS in just two hours. You got it.

Folks, any more questions for Will? Look, he's excited to jump in here. And I know you can always do curveball questions for Will where you can say, hey, Will, what was your thought on Nathan said something earlier in the debate? What's your thought on that? If you want to do that, that could get him involved. They say, ha-hua man says, Nathan staring at the floor is definitely the brand. Were you staring at the floor? I didn't realize that during this debate. Maybe. Maybe.

Okay. Icy Spin says, Nathan, ever seen a duck dressed as a human? What's this question, Nathan? What's this about? You got a duck suit at home or something? Oh, no. Disingenuous YouTubers, pranksters, invited me out under false pretenses that they were working with the Travel Channel, but they're just liars. I don't know why Globers are so obsessed with lies and believing liars, but they lied to me and dragged me all the way out to L.A. and then

had me put on a chicken costume for like five minutes while they did an experiment. And I was laughing at him. So that's what he's talking about. Interesting. This one from Ross and Nate says Nathan's contribution to this debate is like M8. At Emory University, we believe in those with the ambition to achieve, the passion to learn, and the optimism to see the possibilities ahead.

Founded on a belief that the wise heart seeks knowledge. An Emory education combines experiential learning in Atlanta and beyond with unrivaled collaboration and discovery. All to prepare you for a world that needs your leadership. Learn more at emory.edu. 370's contribution to Southern Hemisphere Aviation History. Nathan, that means you failed totally.

Silva says, for Nathan, why do you accept a plane's pitch data as evidence for the flat Earth, but a flight, which demonstrably happens, cannot be accepted as evidence for a globe or against the flat Earth?

Yeah, because that flight works just fine on a flat Earth. And if they were flying around a globe, the plane would have to pitch its nose down to get around the curvature of the globe that doesn't exist. So they fly nose up the entire duration of the flight. We have the pitch data. Well, just to be sure I understand, would you concede that they say, why do you accept a plane's pitch data? So you're like, yeah, it sounds like you're very clearly saying you do. And they're saying, but why is it they say, but a flight?

which demonstrably happens, cannot be accepted as evidence. So are you saying, oh, okay, actually, flight could be accepted as evidence? There was no evidence in the flight. And the flight doesn't prove we live on a globe because the flight didn't go around a globe. They just have problems with the distances and don't understand that jet streams move faster in the south. Yeah.

It's a total red herring. Nobody wants to talk about the floor. I remember back when I started flat earthing, people would actually talk about the floor. They would act like the floor is curving and then say, oh, look, the bottom of something's missing. Now they just don't even talk about the floor anymore. They just got the sky. They pointed the sky. They talk about South Poles that they've never been to. Pretty soon, they're just going to wave a white flag because they're cooking themselves. Silva says for Nathan, why do you accept it?

Got that, Eric? We didn't say as will. What is the odds the sun and moon appears the same size, yet the sun is 400 times larger than the moon and 400 times further from the earth than the moon, so they appear at a ratio of one to one? They say from the only planet we know to contain life.

Yeah, great question. I do not think that that is very likely to have happened by random chance. So whoever's asking that, I would agree with you that I do think that that's evidence of design for sure. Nathan, maybe you're in agreement on this one. No? Yeah, we can agree on some things. What about the moon landing? Will, you think they danced on the moon? I don't remember seeing them dance on the moon, but they walked on the moon. I don't want to. Maybe the Bible says the moon's in the firmament, Will. Matt and Pegg.

If you have a question, let me know. Were they in the firmament? Well, when they walked on it, we agreed earlier that there won't be rebuttal. Yes. Uh, not, not the fake glass crystal dome that no one's ever seen.

Trust Crow says, Nathan, how can you fail to understand that showing an observation is not physically possible on your model? This proves your model. To deny the evidence that sits in front of you is intellectual dishonesty. Okay, Nathan, can you give them a little bit more? Can you humor them a little bit more than the move along finger thing?

All the arguments he thought that exclusively proved the globe can be modeled on a flat Earth with a dome, just fine. I think they're looking for that how part, though. I think they're trying to, because I think they're saying, you know, like someone would say, yeah, these all fit on a banana-shaped Earth. Yeah, everything's got to be completely black. I got to have it on pillars. I don't have room for that in the RV. So not going to be modeling anything for you guys.

Except for my flat Earth sweater. There it is. More merch. Links below. This one's from Kango44. It says, Nathan, you keep saying, quote, test the Earth yourself. I have. It's a glow. GoTanks says, Nathan is either a charlatan or painfully misinformed. There is no other option. The motion of the stars is not a red herring, Nathan. Quit lying.

Come on, Nathan. You got to give him something. Can you give him one word? At least plug your merch. Come on. Burnham says, Nathan, can you admit all of Joe's work on his model is pointless since you wouldn't accept it on merit? I don't know what they mean. Let me read it again. Sometimes it takes twice to read or to hear it twice to understand it. They say, hmm.

Can you admit all of Joe's work on his model is pointless since you would not accept it on merit? No, I can't admit that. Matt K says, Nathan, could you provide calculations based on second law of thermodynamics proving that Earth is an isolated system?

You can't have gas pressure without a container. NASA will tell you that. Go to their Three Phases of Matter website. Also, if you go to their gas pressure website, NASA will tell you that the formula for gas pressure is force over area. So if you don't have an area to press against with the force, you don't have any gas pressure. And we certainly have gas pressure here on Earth, so there's an area containing the gas. That would be the firmament that Will Duffy denies, but it's in his Bible.

I'm not your buddy guy says quote Nathan, there are only three groups of flat earthers, which are you. There are those who are ignorant, those who want to rile others up or trolls and subversives who seek to burn the system down. I'm one of the evangelical flat earthers that go out and share the good news. We don't live on a cartoon tilted ball and they're stealing your money $70 million a day. Let's get some of that back.

So you're doing it for the taxpayer. Okay. Farron Salas says, Nathan, I know I'm being a little bit sarcastic toward Nathan. It just makes the Q&A a little bit more fun and playful. Because I saw someone in chat saying, you're too hard on Nathan. He's tough. Look at him. He can take it. Farron Salas says, Nathan, you are quick to define fallacies. Will you be as quick to put forth a testable flat earth model?

Yeah, I mean, we can model pretty much everything. Flat Earth is like a Victoria's Secret catalog when it comes to models. We can model ocean currents with magnetohydrodynamics. We can model gas pressure gradients inside a closed system. We can model hurricanes. We can model sundogs, star trails, 24-hour sun in the north and the south. We can model everything because we have a container and we can hold water. Spinning balls that are tilted, flying breakneck speeds through an infinite vacuum of nothingness

Do not hold water. So we're actually the only ones who can model anything. Thanks for playing. Given that the topic is the final experiment, were any of those mentioned by Nathan just now from either of you, something that is relevant to the final experiment? And the reason I ask is not to be like, gotcha, Nathan, but more so just to, this would be an opportunity to pick one of those examples.

And like show how it's modeled like hey you know how are hurricanes modeled, I don't think hurricanes are relevant to the final experiment but any of those relevant to the final experiment that you'd want to give us like the explanation or the model that give us the how behind it.

I didn't come here to explain the sky to someone asking questions about the sky over and over and over again. I talk about the floor. He thought looking at the sky debunked what the floor is. I came to laugh at him because that's a joke. I thought I was getting pranked. I thought at any moment Ashton Kutcher was going to come knock on my RV and be like, this is MTV prank. We were just kidding, Nathan. But was there a...

An agreement beforehand that arguments had to be about the floor. I didn't say that because I wanted to show up real time and laugh at it. But then why is it that you make it seem as if there was some sort of agreement, like that arguments had to be about the floor? Okay, he's trying to end flat earth, James, and he's doing it using the sky. He needs to end flat earth using the earth. That's how you end flat earth. Well, just so you know, next time you spend $450,000 to look at the sky.

Don't forget about the South Pole, Nathan. I'm sorry. I'll keep reminding you of that because you have no answer for that. I don't understand, Nathan. Like, why is it you have to use the floor? Like, it just it's not axiomatic to me. It's not self-evident that like you have to use the floor. You can't use other arguments that are not based on it. If the debate is about the floor, James, you should bring evidence regarding floor. Super simple, I mean.

Look at me. Look what I'm reduced to. This is my life. Okay. I'm not your buddy, guys. Says Nathan, there are only three groups of flatter... Oh, we got that one? Farron, we got that one? Terrell Simmons says Nathan entered as a bad faith debater. Josh says... Look at him over there. Are you texting Nathan? Put your little phone down. They say, Will, can you explain why...

what happens in the sky has implications on what the ground is. Nathan, do you have a rebuttal to this? If not, you kind of lost the debate with your fallacy strategy. Will, we'll give you a chance. Can you explain why what happens in the sky has implications on what the ground is? Sure. So number one, this is the most important thing, which is that

All of these observations and experiments that we did with the final experiment, they don't have answers for how those are possible on a flat Earth. And so if they're not possible, then the flat Earth model is refuted. Number two, celestial navigation, to my knowledge, no flat Earthers have been able to demonstrate celestial navigation on a flat Earth

I know that MC Toon has an open offer to have a discussion or a debate with any flat earther on celestial navigation. Austin Witsit is on record saying that MC Toon actually has a very good argument against flat earth and for the globe on celestial navigation, but no one will debate or have this discussion with MC Toon. So celestial navigation, if it works, is telling us about...

where we live and where to travel. And so celestial navigation actually does confirm the globe. My great and worthy adversary MC Toon. We hope he's doing well. And that's Nathan's buddy, right, Nathan? Nathan, what are you doing over there? What are you doing with the lights out? Why is your camera off? Okay, this...

This one, I don't even know. Josh says, Will, oh, we got that one. Dave here says, Nathan, have you been back to Greenville, South Carolina? Is that where you were born? What's the story there, Nathan? That's where I got arrested because I was standing on a public sidewalk and I said large bodies of water don't curve. And Globers was so triggered, they called the police department and the police department violated my civil rights because they don't know in America that you have freedom of speech. You're allowed to say things from public sidewalks.

like large bodies of water don't curve but yeah i'm currently banned from like 80 schools in greenville south carolina which where i'm at right now so i can't go to any of the schools at the moment don't tell people that you're banned from schools it sounds so bad you don't have to put it that way just frame it a different way okay i was on a public sidewalk and i said large bodies of water don't curve james i'm not ashamed of it no big deal this is the elementary school incident am i right yeah

We've all been there. Okay, this one's from James Ketter. It says, lights in the sky say nothing about the shape of the floor. How do you see the floor, Nathan? If windows in ceiling look straight up, show the, looking straight up, show the house across the street, why wouldn't you question your understanding of the floor?

Stop eating pain chips, dude. Seriously. Let me read it again because maybe it didn't. Maybe the point just didn't set in. They say lights in the sky say nothing about the shape of the floor? Question mark. Say, how do you see the floor? They say if windows in the ceiling looking straight up show the house is across the street, why wouldn't you question your understanding of the floor as a result?

I've never looked up at a house across the street, bro. I don't know what that guy's talking about. Dear gosh, Nathan. Are you trying to be difficult? How can you be so obtuse to quote my favorite movie? Does everybody know what movie that is? Okay.

Big bad mama, says Nathan. With a flat earth model, explain the existence. And by flat earth model, they don't mean wits it gets it, okay? They mean a flat earth scientific model. Explain the existence of both the Aurora Borealis in the north and the Aurora Australis in the south. Is that what they call it there? But go ahead, Nathan.

Yeah, I would say they're not even very analogous. If you look at the north, you see these bands of light, like these rivers of light. And in the south, it's all splayed out. It's like a fabric of light that encompasses the entire night sky from horizon to horizon. And I think that's because there's something called electromagnetic ducts. I think that's what they're called. Where they're studying the energy flow from the north out to the south. And as that energy flows outward, it is electromagnetic.

which means the energy is absorbed or reflected. And that's why it's rivers in the north and fabric in the south. You got it. And that is what they call it in Australia. Did you guys know that? Is that my understanding right?

Yeah, Aurora Australias or something like that. Interesting. The Drunk Debunk Show. Thanks for your super chat, said Nathan. Do you still yell at children at schools? Already covered that. He still does. Okay, Nick says, if your best argument is, quote, what's in the sky...

doesn't tell us about the ground, ask yourself why everything up there moves exactly as we'd expect on a globe and not whatever shape you're doodling in crayon.

Now there's actually numerous observations in the sky that debunk the globe like crepuscular rays, local light illumination from the moon around the clouds, and the stars don't intersect the marine horizon. If you take a time lapse of the star trails, when they approach the marine horizon, they fade away off in the distance. Not what would happen if we lived on a globe spinning 1000 miles an hour at the equator. Interesting.

Steve Marsh says Nathan shills his stuff so he could snort more drugs. Nathan, is this true?

Yikes, bro. Glovers in their fields tonight, bro. A lot of feelings policing here. Jeez Louise. Dave Fear says, Nathan, how many feet of curvature do you need to be away from a grade school? Okay, come on. Eddie Lifts FX says, you sound like a DEI pilot. All right. Only joined to troll says, who has anything to gain from lying about the earth being a globe, Nathan?

My question to all flat earth, why lie about it? Well, not only are they stealing $70 million a day, but if they can get you to deny your senses and deny reality, well, that makes you essentially putty in their hand because they can shape and shift and mold the world into whatever they want.

So there's a huge motive to lie to you about where you live and steal $70 million a day. You've been so restrained, self-regulated, Will, that I want to invite you to, if you have any rebuttals, you want to just chip in there because I just hate having you sit idle. If you want, you can always, for example, this one, if you want to say anything, you're welcome to. I appreciate that you haven't because you're wanting to make sure we get to all the questions.

But I also don't want you to be left out if you have anything. All right, I'll chip in if I feel like it. Deal. Mr. E-Man says, no, no, no. Reciprocal zenith angles are measured with respect to the downward bias. Why does Nathan have to lie? Nathan... All right, we're going to the next one. D-Bunk Show says, every time Nathan says, thanks for playing, the crucifix on my wall starts moving. Is this like they're saying you're...

Infested with a demon? I don't understand. I don't get the joke. Rossinate says, Nathan, the course over ground path of a South Hemisphere flight, for example, Sydney to Chile, does not pass anywhere near Anchorage, Vancouver, or Los Angeles, as they must on your Gleason map.

Forget altitude or pitch over. Explain the path over ground. For anybody who's new, I do want to read it just one more time. Pay attention, Nathan. This is a long one, to be fair. They say, Nathan, the, quote, horse over ground...

Half of a southern hemisphere flight, such as Sydney to Chile, does not pass anywhere near Anchorage or Vancouver or Los Angeles, as they would have to on your Gleason map. Forget the altitude or pitch over. Just explain the path over ground.

I mean, unless you had a bird's eye view from like Polaris or the firmament, how would you really know the path that the airplane took unless you're just believing secondhand data that the airplane tells you? So, and that could be all programmed to tell you you live on a cartoon globe so that globers who are gullible will look at it and say, oh my gosh, look, we live on a cartoon globe. You can also look out, you can also buy a window seat and look out the window. This one from Ajax. Yeah, we did that.

We do that with infrared, too, and you can see over a thousand miles, which deep hunks your globe religion. So we're constantly looking out the window. Well, thanks for playing. This one from Ajax says, Will, how could your experiment end mental derangement of the flat Earth? I didn't understand the question.

I think they're saying, Will, how could, I mean, I'll read it verbatim. They say, how could your experiment end mental illness? Oh, okay. They're saying flat earth is a mental illness and they're saying, how could it end it? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I'll deal with that. When I say end flat earth, I don't mean magically overnight every flat earther is going to say they were wrong. No.

There are still people who deny the Holocaust. There are still people who deny that the Titanic sank and it is at the bottom of the ocean. What I'm saying is, is that we're going to see a mass exodus out of flat earth. Flat earth will slowly die and become very minor and

irrelevant and the people that don't want to look at evidence and just want to turn flat earth into a type of a religion that's based on faith only while they do this and this they'll there's not much we can do for them you got it and this one coming in i'm getting so much heat in chat this is like uh i don't understand it's uh we're just having a good time folks

I don't understand. Chat, let me know. Why is it that some of you, someone just keeps posting this super inappropriate thing. I'm like, what? The Vegan Marie says, Will, please take Nathan to space and show him the Earth. Nathan, would that persuade you if you did go to space? You went on a SpaceX voyage with Will in several years and you saw the Earth as a globe. Would it change your mind or would you think that maybe there's some sort of

hijinks going on, some sort of trick. Space is fake. It violates natural law. That's why it's a cartoon. And the rocket launches are parabolic. What goes up must come down. So go ahead. Speaking of space launches, I want to give a quick plug to Jaronism. Jaron Campanella lives in California and he's been he's been going out and filming the SpaceX launches.

and they don't show up at his horizon for over a minute after they have launched. And so he is arguing that that rocket is hidden by the curve of the Earth. He's asking flat earthers, what else could it be? And he has received no answers. And I can tell you that there are flat earthers who are convinced about this and are leaving flat Earth because of what he's doing. So these rocket launches are a powerful way to show the curve.

Nathan, do you want to add anything as you take your final line? The rocket launches are parabolic. If you look at the lines that come out of the airplanes, those are all straight lines. So you can't tell me that the rocket's going over the curve of the Earth when the lines behind the airplanes are perfectly straight lines. Where is the rocket for the first minute and five seconds, Nathan?

before it hits Jaren's horizon. He's not that far away. I'm doing 21 questions about the sky that ended about 30 minutes ago. Okay. This one coming in from, I do want to bring this up, Nathan, because it came up earlier and I am curious about your opinion because Will did ask you, and it is interesting.

So I'm looking on Social Blade. If anybody's unfamiliar, Social Blade is where you can track social media accounts and see, for example, how many subs a YouTube channel gets per day, like new ones. And Jaren, this is actually to praise Jaren, not to put him down. His daily average is negative 33 subs. The reason being, of course, that if I understand right, he recently changed his mind on the flat earth. And so...

a lot of flat earthers are probably unsubscribing because they're like, hey, bro, like, what's your deal? But, you know, he is, you know, it's not like this changing of his mind has no cost. He is losing subscribers. So, like, it's probably sincere. Like, Nathan is sincere, right? Like, what's your explanation for Jaren doing this? Is he, is there some sort of

government subsidy he's receiving. I don't understand. What is it? How do you explain Jaren changing his mind? Yeah, I mean, people change their mind all the time. I don't really care about what men think or what men do or what men believe. The creator says, follow me. So I'm following the creator. And it also says, do not take counsel from the ungodly. So I don't really listen to much of what Jaren has to say at all, period. He's not even a believer, dude. So...

Okay. Riveting. This one coming in from says, Burnham says, Will, did you measure longitude line distances? Yes, we did. This hasn't been released yet, but this is, we actually did measure the ground. I didn't have the data, so I didn't bring it up.

But Nathan, longitude lines converge south of the equator, which is only possible on a globe and is the exact opposite of what is required on a flat Earth. We measured the ground and we will be releasing that at some point. We measured it both in Chile and Antarctica. You saw imaginary lines curving and converging back into a southern point? Imaginary lines. You saw those? Did I say I saw a line?

Oh, so you didn't see any lines, but you measured it. So you measured a line that you couldn't see. We did measure, yeah. You measured a line that you couldn't see. We measured a line that people use to navigate every single day that works. A line you couldn't see.

Yeah, the lines that Uber drivers use every day. I couldn't see, James. Did you hear that one, bro? That was the best part of the entire thing. We got to give him a chance to finish his sentence. Hey, Nathan, I'm going to tell you something right now that I wasn't going to release to the public, but it's too good, okay? When I was in Antarctica, I was flying my drone and it crashed.

And they can't have a crashed drone just left in Antarctica. And so the rules and the laws and the regulations state that it must be rescued. It was, we didn't even know where it was. It was very, very far away. And so my controller had GPS coordinates of where it crashed.

And so the guy that worked for ALE, Scott, plugged the GPS coordinates into his GPS unit and it took him straight to my drone, which is about this big and it weighs 249 grams. So you can sit there and laugh.

about not being able to see lines and GPS coordinates, but the reality is they are very real. You can't see the Wi-Fi signal that you're using for this debate, but that doesn't mean it's real. So I would suggest that you not laugh and look into these things a little bit more because they work and they exist. Nathan, put your clothes back on and turn your camera back on and answer, please. Nathan. Yeah, a drone is not an option.

Drone is not an imaginary line. So you claiming you measured an imaginary line and then transitioning to some story about how you lost your drone. I already knew you lost your drone. Jonathan came on TikTok panel and told us about you losing your drone. So I don't know why you're like, oh, I'm going to share something I wasn't going to share. I already heard that story, bro. And it's OK. It was found by these imaginary lines that are really close together in the south. So that confirms the globe and is not possible on a flat earth.

imaginary lines prove the globe religion excellent this one from kangal44 says will are you a young earth creationist if so doesn't that put you in the same gang as flat earthers

Good question. And the answer is no. So what people need to realize is there's a massive difference. Okay, sorry, I'm going to confuse people when I say no. I consider myself a young earth creationist. I do not subscribe to the 6,000 years though. But I say this, there's a huge difference between young earth creationism and flat earth.

Flat Earth is denying a physical present reality, which is the shape of the object that we live on. That's very different than trying to understand how long the Earth has been here and what happened when nobody that's living today was there. I also say this, that I am more than willing to admit or acknowledge or cater to somebody who thinks that the Earth is older, because I just don't think that that's

a very profitable debate. It isn't for me. If God created a tree in front of me in an instant, a fully mature tree, I could never convince anyone that

that wants to disagree with me that that tree is young and that God just created it because they would say, we've never seen this. We know every tree takes this long to grow. And so I just don't see that as a very worthwhile debate. So I take the position, if you disagree with me and you think I'm wrong, I will go ahead and give that to you. We'll start off with whatever age you think the earth is. Then we can debate things

that have more substance and meaning to me, such as the existence of God and those types of issues. You do believe in God though, Will, right? Of course. We'll jump to the second question. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Know your realm, says Will. Are you a traveling man? I'm a traveling man. Was that your first time to Antarctica, by the way? Yes, it was. And it probably will not be my last.

It's pretty epic to go to Antarctica. It's kind of like, figuratively speaking, the world's end. You're going, and it's pretty cool. I mean, it's certainly the least traveled to continent by a huge margin. Yeah, it's the bottom of the world. So it's amazing. And I am thankful that I was able to help flat earthers get there.

And we'll see if any flat earthers go in the future, but I am skeptical that that will happen. Can a person walk on Antarctica if they take one of those cruises that goes across the Drake? Do you know? Say that one more time. You know if someone can set foot on Antarctica if they take one of those cruises that goes out there? Or is it that you probably wouldn't be able to? Do you know?

I don't know, but I'm pretty sure you can. Different cruises go to different places. There's a cruise line that goes pretty far south called Heritage Expeditions, and there's some that only go to the Antarctic Peninsula.

Let me write this down. Heritage Expedition. Because if I were to go to Antarctica, I can't go to the Holiday Inn. So unless I know someone there, I have to just do a cruise and set foot for an hour or something and go back to the cruise ship. No, or you can go with ALE, Antarctic Logistics and Expeditions, which is who we went with, which flies to the interior of Antarctica and

and has camps like Union Glacier. They have a camp at the South Pole, which doesn't exist on a flat Earth. And you can go camp at Union Glacier, you can camp at the South Pole by taking flights. You might want to tell them at that encampment at the South Pole that they don't exist, because, you know, says Nathan.

But let's see, Nathan, you mean you got to go out there yourself, Nathan, and you got to visit these people at the South Pole and tell them this. Is there anything that would say it doesn't exist, James? I said you could put up a sign anywhere in Antarctica that says this is your geographic South Pole and gullible globers will take a picture with it, a selfie and pretend they're upside down on a ball. It doesn't verify that they actually live on a ball, dude.

Fair enough. Yeah. Hey, James. It's actually not fair enough.

Flat earthers forget that there's a lot more than just that pole there, which is the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, which is absolutely massive. It's 80,000 square feet. And so there's only one South Pole. You can get there at approximately the same amount of time, whether you're flying from South Africa, South America, or New Zealand. That only works on a globe. It is absolutely not possible on a flat Earth. Interesting. Yeah.

This is the next video that I'm releasing on our channel. It is devastating. Nathan, any thoughts? Are you looking up an answer on Google, Nathan? What are you doing over there? All right. This one from Steve Ameling says the Japanese Himawari 8 satellite satellite

takes a photo of the earth every 10 minutes. Nearly the entire catalog of photos is available online. 144 per day, approximately 52,000 per year.

You know what else takes a picture of the Earth every 10 minutes? Your boy Nathan Thompson right here. And you can see too far, there's no curvature at all whatsoever. We don't have a physical geometric horizon. Specular reflections only work on a flat surface. Plane surveying assumes the Earth is flat for 100 square miles, and celestial navigation on the ocean uses triangles, which assume a flat Earth as well.

So the Himawari, which you deflected on, Nathan, the Himawari 8 has been decommissioned. It's been replaced with the Himawari 9. What this person said is absolutely true. They do take an image of the earth every 10 minutes. What I find is the most fascinating thing, though, is that they capture natural phenomenon that occur on the earth that people don't even see or experience.

So for example, there was an underwater volcano called the Hunga Tonga, which erupted in the middle of the ocean. And people didn't even know that it happened until much later when there was like a tsunami. And so the Himawari 9 had a picture of the Hunga Tonga explosion before the sound of the volcano was heard in New Zealand. So there is no answer from flat earthers for the Himawari 9. There is none.

You could easily take real data and superimpose it onto a globe and just say, look, guys, you live on a globe. They had that technology back in the 70s, bro. Wow. Ajax says, Will, you feel good owning the intellectually disabled? Oh, come on. He's sitting right here.

Nathan, all right. You've been a good sport, Nathan. We've been teasing you a lot, so we do appreciate you being here as well. All right, James, you know it says, blessed are you when men curse you and revile you and speak all kind of evil against you falsely for my name's sake. So I'm just sitting up here telling people they could test the earth. I've done it for 10 years, and all of a sudden, I'm the bad guy. So that's fine. I'm cool with it. It's no big deal. It's been the case for about 10 years. To be fair, in this context, I don't think that they're...

making fun of you for your being a christian or i think they're saying uh it's because of your flat earth position variety tube chan says how will how does it feel to sacrifice so much time and money to graciously invite flat earthers to antarctica just to have them stubbornly persist in their invincible ignorance aka their flat earth stance

Here's the deal. If the final experiment rescues one person out of Flat Earth, it's worth it, and that's already happened. I can tell you right now that Jaren being out of Flat Earth has completely changed his life.

And just the one thing that I need to hear to know all of this was a massive success is that he's no longer going to teach his son that we live on a flat earth. So that right there is enough. Everything else is icing on the cake and it's been just a wild success way more than I could have ever imagined. You're saving the world one flat earth or at a time. Well, keep up the good work. It's crazy that Jaron did change his position because I remember Jaron's been around since before a modern day debate and he's

That was his shtick, is he used to be like Aaron Raw on Flat vs. Globe on the non-sequitur show. Anybody in chat remember that? So it is interesting. James, I remember when Aaron Raw ran away 10 minutes into the debate with me, and then I just did question and answer for an hour and a half with you. Do you remember that? Yes. Yep. He admitted he didn't have any proof of the R-value before he left.

That was great. I don't know if you said that, but bass guitar says, how does Nathan know the North Pole is the center of the flat Earth? Has he been there? Well, I didn't make the claim that the North Pole is the center of the flat Earth, but if you look at the motion of the celestial bodies, everything is moving from east to west around polar center. Even the planets make perfect geometric shapes on a flat Earth.

orbiting around Polaris, and the globers say the sun is the center of the solar system, even though they make perfect geometric orbits. If you look into the Mercury problem, they actually had a problem explaining Mercury's retrograde movement on the globe religion because it just appears to stop and start going backwards. So that's where you get bendy, warpy space-time and dark matter and dark energy and all the things in the globe religion that you can't see, test, or verify experimentally.

Interesting. This one from, don't forget to hit that like button, Max V. Says, for Will, would you prefer to debate an actual adult and not a child who doesn't even understand how airplanes fly?

I will say this. Nathan Thompson, if anybody wants to rewind when they're watching this later, he just made a claim about the ground based on the lights in the sky. He made a claim that there's a physical North Pole because of how the lights in the sky rotate. So it shows even he understands the lights in the sky tell us a lot about the Earth we live on. Uh-oh, Nathan. Yeah, I'm cooked. Nathan, did you violate your own rule that you made up earlier? Sorry. Sorry.

No, I was just saying that the solar system is not sun-centered, it's Polaris-centered because everything we see in the sky moves around Polaris. And you can line up giant megalithic structures like the Georgia Guidestones with that stationary pole star Polaris, which is what Polaris means, pole star. And you can observe all the constellations, 88. We have 36 in the north, 52 in the south.

That makes sense on a globe religion. We have more time zones in the south than we do in the north. So everything matches up with a flat earth celestially. That's why the Ptolemaic model was unchanged for 1400 years. And the globe religion reinvents itself every two months. Nick says, Will, what do you think is the main reason flat earthers refuse to accept evidence, no matter how clear it is? Why the mental block?

Yeah, this is a tough one that if I had the answer for, I would do something that would work. But I do think that there is a bit of Gnosticism inside the Flat Earth community where they think that they have this special knowledge. And I will give them credit that

that they do believe that they have uncovered this conspiracy of truth being hidden from the world. And so they're wearing the cape of bringing the truth to everybody. So I will give them credit there. But I think that Gnosticism is making it hard for them to understand and accept and acknowledge things that disagree with their model. And so confirmation bias is rampant in Flat Earth.

This one from Ajax says, Nathan, how did you study or learn physics? Who said I know physics? I mean, are you assuming I know physics? Burnham says all of Joe's work is on things in the sky on flat earth. Nathan, is this true? That's not true. He's done observations of the floor, too.

So, but yeah, he does a great job with astrophotography. He taught me a lot, taught me about a battenoff mask and how to properly focus on the stars with my P1000 and my P900. Showed me the solar filter that I need for my P900 infrared. All right. Joe is great. We got it.

Yeah, Joe, I sat next to him for an hour, and this guy's flipping through his phone showing me everything he's modeled from rainbows to clouds to local light illumination from the sun, 24-hour sun, 24-hour star trails in the north and the south. Like, the guy has been doing a lot of work. I got to tip my hat to him and just having a lot of fun out with all the flat earthers that I've seen in the RV. You guys are the best.

Wow. KSUSA1933 says, why is Joseph Hanvey modeling the sun and stars if they don't prove the shape of the floor, Nathan?

Yeah, because the scriptures say test all things and hold fast to that, which is true. And he's just trying to show how on a flat Earth we can model pretty much everything we see in the sky because flat Earth is a Victoria's Secret catalog for modeling things. Globers can't model anything. They can't stick water to a spinning tilted ball and send it through an infinite vacuum of space. So they don't have any models. They have cartoons, video games and fairy tales from dead people they've never met.

I just want to be sure that the original point isn't lost on this. They say, so they say, you know, why is Joseph Han demodeling the sun and the stars that they don't prove the shape of your floor? I think you're saying, but you know, Nathan, don't you remember earlier in the debate, you were saying that like looking at the sky, it's not a useful way to like learn about the floor, but it sounds like you just,

20 seconds ago said that, yeah, like there are all these ways in which the sky corroborates the floor. He's not trying to prove what the floor is by modeling things in the sky. He's just showing that now that we've proven what the floor is flat and non-rotating, we can also model everything in the sky. Globers don't have a model. That would be a waste of time, right? Because you said earlier...

I don't mean to get in the debate myself. No, this is actually really important. Only the globe model makes sense of what we observe. For example, I mentioned this earlier that the sun made a wave pattern through the sky when we were in Union Glacier. That was actually predicted by the globe model, not Joe Hanvey's model. And MC Toon actually took a prediction to Antarctica of the shadow lengths

of the shadows in Antarctica, all 360 degrees. And it was exactly what the globe model predicted. Flat Earth does not have predictions because it's not real. Can we see this globe model that you just said made predictions? Can you show us it real quick? Yeah, no problem. So that model made predictions. Where are the predictions on that model?

They're all online on MC Toon's website. Okay, so MC Toon made the predictions, not your globe model. Your globe model is just a toy, and on the bottom of the toy it says not for educational purposes. He made his predictions public on his channel prior to us going to Antarctica, and they were based on the globe model. Can you show that model again? Because it looks like the water is painted on. Do you have a model with actual water contained, or does it all have to be painted on?

It sounds like you don't understand what the word model means. And I'm not talking about a physical plastic model. The globe model is based on all the measurements and observations that we see.

So like I said before, ladies and gentlemen, Flat Earth has all the models. We are Victoria's Secret catalog. They can't even get water to stick to their spinning globe. They have to paint the water on. So they have cartoons, painting, video games, and fairy tales from dead people. That's all the globe has. They don't have any models. Hey, Nathan. Hey, Nathan. We're still waiting on the first model with an observer inside the dome. You guys have zero. You have nothing.

You want a model inside the dome? Yeah, yeah, a camera in the dome. All right, here's a model. I'll model it for you. I'm the Flattery's model inside the dome. And look, I have a camera in the dome, Will. Congratulations, you got what you wanted, bro. Okay, show a 24 sun going around you while you're under the dome. That's where you have to start. And you won't be able to do that. Welcome to Flattery, Will.

This one from uncranked Chevron says, will, are you spies by the flatter communities unwillingness to substantively engage with the evidence collected by the final experiment? Yes, I am. I am because, you know, they call themselves truthers. They say they're just trying to go where the evidence leads and that they, all they care about is truth. We have delivered evidence. We have delivered the truth and the flat earth community as a whole is

is taking this position that we didn't go to Antarctica or we faked it or the sun wasn't real or Satan became the sun and faked us. Austin Witsit, he is struggling to get his community to even accept that he actually went to Antarctica. So this was a shock that I didn't see coming. And it is the reason there's a mass exodus out of Flat Earth.

Interesting. And this next question coming in from 3Ron. By the way, if I'm standing, I just want to prevent my back from cramping, but I'm still here. So they said, Nathan, all evidence is used not just by the cherry-picked ground immediately at your feet. Having said that, it's an earth has been measured curved. Nathan, what are your thoughts?

James, you've got to tell your audience, stop eating paid chips. Next question, please. I've got to be honest. I don't understand that one. So, Potato Man says, Nathan, what makes you think that you understand physics? Aren't you incompetent?

Well, if you look at the physics of water, like fluid statics, which is the study of large bodies of water at rest, large bodies of water at rest are level and horizontal to their container. Now, the word level means free of bends, curves, or irregularities. Synonyms are flat, plumb, flush, smooth,

Flat as a pancake. If you look at the properties or the physics of gas and gas pressure requires a container. That's why every formula for gas pressure, doesn't matter if you use PSI or Pascal's, is going to have area. That would be pounds per square inch or newtons per meter squared. That would be the area. No area, no gas pressure, no firmament, no air to breathe. The wicker man. Sorry, go ahead. Go ahead, Jeff.

The wicker man says proud of being banned from schools says it all. Don't you think, Nathan? I literally didn't even go to any schools. I was on a public sidewalk and I got banned from school. So, yeah, it's fine. I don't really care. You guys can talk about it all you want.

Good, because Jonathan Jenler said, yelling and harassing kids isn't free speech. Next one from Potato Man says, Will, are you feeling... Okay, we got that one. Josh O says, I'm very Christian, and I assure you the Bible never suggests a flat earth. Since Nathan refuses, how do you flat earthers explain the 24-hour sun normally? Or I'm sorry, they say, Will...

They say, Will, how do flat earthers explain the 24-hour sun usually? Like, what's their usual method? Oh, yeah. Their usual method is to deny it. That's what they did for almost 10 years is they were adamant that it does not exist. And now that we have gone, they're now saying that it was Satan, that it was a giant laser pointer, that we were in a giant Amazon studio with LED screens. So they're just in denial mode still.

Yeah, but he said that the Bible doesn't say anything about the shape of the earth being flat. It says in Job 38, 14, that the earth takes shape like clay under a seal. Now, Will, if I press out clay with this flat earth seal, is it a ball or is it flat with upturned edges? You forgot the word like. So is it like a ball or is it like a flat earth with upturned edges, Will?

The word like means it's just a word picture. It's poetry. Okay, but is it like a ball? Or is it like a flat earth with upturned edges when it has that word poetry going on? It depends on what the earth looked like when it took shape originally. So if I pressed clay out with this wax seal, it depends on if it comes out globular or flat. Yeah, that's right.

- This one. - Okay, how can I press something out and make it globular with this, Will? - You're assuming that that's the seal that it's referring to. - Could you show me a seal that presses out clay into a ball? - I can't show you a seal from the time of Job. - Okay, all right, well, here's a seal that presses out flat with upturned edges, Will. Thanks for playing. - Three Ron says crepuscular rays are parallel. I have pictures.

The only way to duplicate crepuscular rays are with a local light obstruction and some sort of particulates in the air so you can see the rays. There's no other way to duplicate crepuscular rays with a light source that sends out parallel rays. If the rays were parallel, they wouldn't be crepuscular and converging to a single point. Also, since glovers are obsessed with the sun, I would look into the UV light index. It shows...

that the light is focused between the tropics now for a globe religion the sun would have to be a laser beam pointing directly at the equator for that to happen but on a flat earth it makes perfect sense because the sun is small and local and rotates around polaris like every other celestial body we see this one from angle of elevation says can will demonstrate the 24-hour sun

in Antarctica with a physical globe earth model. If he can't do it, he concedes he lost this debate. Flat Earth takes the win. Yeah, it's very easy. You can do it with a flashlight and a globe. I've done it. It's super easy. You just shine a flashlight on a globe tilted at about 23 and a half degrees and you spin it

west to east, and you'll notice that the majority of Antarctica stays lit, assuming the South Pole is facing in the direction of the light. So yeah, that's super easy to do. Actually, let me...

Let me just do it real quick. So there's Antarctica, you can see. As it spins, you'll notice that's Australia right there in pink. So if the sun was here, if you're the sun, you're looking at it, Australia has daytime right now. Now Australia has nighttime. Now there's Africa, there's South America. And you'll notice you can see down here, Antarctica the entire time, is lit the entire time. That is what causes the 24-hour sun.

You got it. Well, your Bible says the earth doesn't move. So you showing the earth moving goes directly against the scriptures that you claim to preach. Hey, Nathan, the Bible says certain men don't move either. So it sounds like you don't understand figures of speech. This one coming in from, do appreciate it, Messianic Jewish Beaumont, says Nathan, is Antarctica the sky or the ground? Thank you, Will, for the final experiment.

Antarctica is the ground. We didn't get any evidence that Antarctica was curving in all directions. We went to Antarctica to look at the sky, and that doesn't prove what the floor is. Thanks for playing. Only joined to troll. James, am I crazy? Did you use a chain smoke? No, I think that's Andrew Wilson. This one from Nick says, Will, now that you've been to Antarctica and witnessed the 24-hour sun firsthand...

Do you feel like you've accomplished your mission? Is the response from the flatter side what you'd expect, had expected? Yeah, I definitely have accomplished my mission. I gave them evidence.

I gave it to them in a form that they have demanded in the past, which is very, very high threshold. They like to show very blurry photos of things and act like it proves something. We brought high definition video. We brought eyewitness account. I even made sure we had flat earthers there. So we gave them everything they asked for.

Again, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. And so at this point it's on them, but we're seeing a lot of flat earthers accepting the evidence and walking away. So it's good. We asked for curvature. Well, you didn't pay attention for 10 years. We want some curvature to the Earth's surface. There's no curvature to the Earth's surface. So looking at the sky to prove what the Earth's surface is, is goofy.

Hey, Nathan, I got a question for you. If somebody wanted to show you a picture of curvature from a weather balloon, what camera and lens would you accept for that experiment?

That's a Snoop Dogg fallacy, Will, because getting high to figure out what the shape of the Earth is is something Snoop Dogg would do. It's a Snoop Dogg fallacy. So we don't need to get high to figure out where we live. You could take an infrared camera or a regular P-1000

Save $449,000 on your trip to Antarctica and debunk the globe religion. There's no curvature when we look at the floor, Will. Let me know if you need help testing it. Happy to come hold your hand, bro. Okay, so the purpose of the weather balloon is to look at the floor. So you just kind of exposed yourself there that you're not willing to do tests or consider evidence that goes against your claim. Exactly.

The purpose of an infrared... And by the way, we've sent up high-altitude balloons. Even Neil deGrasse Tyson, who has a PhD in astrophysics, goes on Joe Rogan, isn't Will Duffy sitting here on Modern Day Debate talking to a flat earther right now. He's on Joe Rogan, bud. And he says the Earth isn't curved from a high-altitude weather balloon. So asking me if I'd accept curvature from a high-altitude weather balloon that doesn't exist is goofy. You need to listen to the Delphic oracles

of your globe religion will. Nathan, are you saying Neil deGrasse Tyson can't be wrong? Are you saying there's curvature from a high altitude weather balloon? Because we've sent them up and there's no curvature. You don't like to answer questions. It's very telling. This one from KSUSA says, is airplane pitch data and path secondhand data?

Yeah, that's why I don't rely on it as proof that the Earth is flat. You could take your own camera to a large body of water and verify what the pitch data is telling us that airplanes don't fly around the globe. This one from Nick says, Will. My laptop's not full of batteries here, guys. So how many more questions we got, James? Oh, we got a lot of them, Nathan. I need you to plug in.

Says, Will, now that you've been to Antarctica and witnessed the 24-hour sun firsthand, do you feel like you've accomplished... We got that. Sorry. I'm sorry. Megan Marie says, we all know you're enjoying nose candy, Nathan. Keep your camera on. All right. Booba Sweat says, notice all the super chats are chewing Nathan up and the chat is full of flat earthers. Shows you who has the jobs around here. Oh, my gosh.

Sorry, Flat Earthers. We love you. Magellan says, Nathan, what nonsense conspiracy theory do you plan to make a pathetic living off of next? Next question, dude. Max V says, Nathan's position is simply Bible, Bible, snort.

I don't even know if Will would agree with that. But Duskstorm Gaming says, if the sun is in the firmament, quote unquote, how do Mercury and Venus pass between the earth and the sun? Do they just shrink down and pass into the quote unquote firmament? Nathan, where'd you go? I think Nathan's using the restroom or something. Folks, if you haven't yet, hit that like button.

I'm sure Nathan's going to come back any moment. Maybe he's like underneath the table or something, but do hit that like button as we have more questions we're going to hit. Some of which include Magellan saying, Nathan, whose house are you squatting at? And also, let's see. Sri Ron says, Nathan preaches about an imaginary dome no one has ever seen. Ah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. In all caps. Nathan, thoughts?

Gas pressure requires a container. The sky is a map and a clock. You could use it to celestial navigate. You could do astroarchaeology and line up giant megalithic buildings with the sky. Let me show you actually what that looks like. I went to the Georgia Guidestones and I recorded all the stars rotating around this oculus in the Georgia Guidestones. They built this 19 foot tall graphite megalithic structure 40 years before I showed up and they knew that

that Polaris wasn't going to move because the sky is a map and a clock. We have a firmament dome above us. That's what's containing the gas pressure so you can breathe. Next question. Jessica says, God endorses slavery, giving instructions to beat them, take their wives and how to buy them. Jessica's watching the wrong debate. They say, do you agree with this? Do you admit the Bible is wrong? It's kind of an apologetics question. They say, if the Bible is wrong, how can you trust it, Nathan?

That's begging the question policy. They're assuming the Bible is wrong and then asking me how I can trust it I don't think the Bible is strong will does because we'll think the earth moves and the Bible says here It doesn't move well things here take shape like clay under a ball But clay under a seal is flat with upturned edges Will thinks the moon is in outer space when the Bible says the moon is in the firmament So it's actually well you need to ask that question to will but

Jelen says, Nathan, you man-toddler. Stop playing with your phone and engage with the grown-ups. Ubaswat says, you're the bad guy because you're not allowed within 200 yards of a school, Nathan. Shirag N.D. says, hey, Will, what, according to you, would be the final experiment equivalent to prove slash disprove the existence of God? Hmm.

Yeah, that's a very difficult one. Talking about something that is spiritual and non-physical is way different than talking about something that is physical. So I don't know if something like that exists.

I will say that I love having a conversation about the existence of God because I struggle to see the possibility of there not being a God. I think that particular debate is going to go on for millennia indefinitely, and it's a good one to have, but I don't think it's going to be a slam dunk like we did with TFE. Silva says, Nathan, can you provide your 10 years data?

Yeah, I tested the Salton Sea 17 miles across. National Geographic was there. They filmed the horizon above and behind a boat but said the curvature was happening in front of the boat. We've got infrared photography from a helicopter. I showed that earlier, I think.

But also we tested Lake Pontchartrain. It's 22 miles across. I could see buildings that were under 200 feet tall. With Whitsitt, I did an observation in Florida from 14 miles away. You could see the water brushing up against the rocks on the opposite side of the ocean.

And we were in some port that 12 foot observation height. So I've tested it. You guys can go test it. The numbers don't add up. Math doesn't lie. People and governments lie. Politicians lie. Actors and entertainers, musicians and journalists on the news station, they're paid to lie. This one coming in from Tom Willis says, Will,

Nathan said he has, quote, friends down there, unquote, about New Zealand. What do you think he meant by that? Nathan, if Earth is flat, quote, down there doesn't exist. Yeah, this is a Freudian slip that flat earthers make a lot. They talk about it down because I think they know that we live on a globe. At least some of them do.

Yeah. This one from Ross and eight says ghost Mantis. It was more of quote, Hey kids, come get this pamphlet. Give it to your teachers. Your teachers are lying to you. This one from Issa Martel says Christian scientists tested and found it's it's round. What about that? Nathan?

Yeah, something can be round and flat. So I'm going to have to teach that guy about shapes real quick. Right. A pizza is round. A plate is round. A coin is round. And those are also flat. So something can be round and flat. Please go learn shapes. Then we can have a conversation about the shape of the earth. This one coming in from.

Aaron, or is that how it's pronounced? They say, Aaron Raw left because you didn't pull up your end of the debate, Nathan. You agreed to bring something, namely a flat earth model, and didn't because you are not honest. I don't have to give on a silver platter a map or a model that measures the entire known observable world to debunk the fact there's no curvature anywhere I've ever tested. So...

I told him that and he ran away anyways after admitting he didn't have evidence for the R value. This one coming in from, oh, that reminds me, folks, we have a poll in the chat right now. So if you come on over to the Modern Day Debate live chat, you can put a quick vote in. Even if you're just stopping by, you might as well participate in the poll. If you're watching over at the final experiment, you can swing on by to Modern Day Debate as the poll is that the final experiment is

End the Flat Earth Movement. It's already got 1,100 votes. So it's a popular poll. So far, leading is 66%. Say yes, it beat it like it owed it money.

Namely, the Flat Earth beat the, I'm sorry, the final experiment beat the Flat Earth movement, they're saying. 25% though say no, Flat Earth forever. And 9% say I'm unsure, I'm drinking my Soylent. This one from Heven Stalking says, Will, how do you explain lights from stars that are millions or billions of light years away? Weird, how can you believe in space but not how light works?

Yeah, it's a really good question. Again, people aren't hearing me. If you believe that that light took however long it would take to reach us on Earth, I'm totally fine with that. Maybe you're right. That's great.

I don't see the fruit in debating the age of the earth, but I will say that I do. The Bible does reference God stretching out the heavens. And so obviously, if God was going to create a universe for us, he would want to create lights in the sky that we can see. And you want to create a mature world for us to live in and enjoy. And so I do think either of those are possible.

This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Mr. E-Man says, Will just nailed Nathan's hypocrisy. Not even the finger thing, Nathan. Come on. Even Stalking says, Will, how do you? We got that. Texas Red says, no, Nate. Everything revolves around empty space in the sky near the Southern Cross. The world is flat and Antarctica is its center. That's right. The flat earth has no answer. Nathan.

Magellan says, Nathan, is the dog more intelligent than you? Oh, come on. All right.

It's all on good fun. Seriously, we do appreciate Nathan being here. He is a good sport. I've got to give him this. Give him credit for at least give him at the minimum, the absolute minimum. You know, he takes a lot of heat from the chat. He takes some sarcasm meant to be playful from me. Stephen Ameling says prior to the final experiment, it seems flat earthers were happy to use lights in the sky to predict the shape of the earth.

That is regarding lights observed at the North pole. Now with the final experiment, that argument is now discarded. Nathan, is this true? This is a great point. This is a great point. Eric Dubé said that a 24 hour sun in the North proves flat earth and

A group of flat earthers sent D. Marble to Alaska to film the 24-hour sun. So yes, their position was that the lights in the sky tell us that the earth is flat until we showed them the one thing they said didn't exist, the 24-hour sun in Antarctica. And all of a sudden, magically now, the lights in the sky mean nothing.

But you'll notice if you go back and rewind the Q&A, when Nathan talks a lot, he immediately brings up things in the sky like Polaris. Nathan? This one coming in from, do appreciate it, Jooms says, Nathan, submarines use a gyroscope and are shaped like a spacecraft. Therefore, space exists by following a gyroscope on a globe model. Thanks for coming. Next question. Mic drop. Go ahead, Nathan.

He said next question. Nathan. All right, folks, I got to tell you, please don't send any more questions because Nathan is inebriated. I don't know what he's doing over there. He's laying on the floor. Nathan, don't give up like this. Come on. All right. I killed Earl. Okay. I'm watching Geo. He had to go for a walk, but I'm listening, dude. I'm right here. Thank you. I killed Earl says there are more time zones in the Southern hemisphere because China only has a one time zone enforced by the law. You doofus.

Bro, this is not worth my time, James. And you like expecting me to respond to all these ridiculous questions that aren't really questions. They're just insults. Oh, well, I mean, doofus. Like, I don't know if it's an insult, but I mean, like, really, it's not that bad. I just got better at things to do. I'll take the insults out of the questions. But they are saying there are more time zones in the southern hemisphere because China only has one time zone enforced by the law. Cool story, bro.

Okay. This one from Bern Ham says, Nathan, did Joe show you how he aligns his telescope mount to the sky? As a fellow astrophotographer, I know it proves Polaris is not in the center. We observe everything rotating around Polaris. You can line up giant megalithic buildings with Polaris, and it's the center point of rotation. Even Google admits this. This is how it works on your globe. Sorry.

Actually, this is false. Polaris moves. It is not the center of the North Celestial Pole. Any evidence in a move? Yeah. In star trails. Okay, well, it doesn't move in star trails. It has a slight oscillation, but all the stars move fixed to Polaris. No. Ubasweat says, yeah, we'll just simulate a planet in a lab already. Max V says...

Quote, fairy tales from dead people. Unquote. Are you talking about the Bible, Nathan? No, I'm talking about like Newton and Galileo, Copernicus, a bunch of people that were all superseded by Einstein, who had a kinematic equivalence and said you could explain the sky on a geocentric Earth, which pretty much destroys five out of six of Will Duffy's arguments. Stop arguing with Einstein, Will.

This one coming in from, and I want to remind you folks, we cannot read any more questions. If you submit them after this time, we won't be able to read it. Aaron Armstrong says, my goodness, you have sunken. Okay. Aaron says absolutely zero flat earth models have an atmospheric pressure gradient. Nathan, your arguments are unsound.

everything in nature all physical matter has a gradient the ocean has a pressure gradient as you dive down deeper in the ocean there is more pressure because there is more overlying layers of water above your head when globy mcglobeface uh anti-flat earth or glober on tiktok plays with his legos and he stacks legos on top of the bottom legos the bottom legos

have more Legos on top of them than the top Legos. So the Legos that he plays with actually have a pressure gradient as well. All phases of matter have pressure gradients. Thanks for playing. Magellan says, Nathan, let's see, we got that one. Potato Man says, Nathan, how did you learn these gas pressure laws?

You can look them up. They're on NASA's website. I can show you that, actually, if you guys want to see that. Here you go. Phases of matter on NASA's website saying that water needs a container and gas pressure requires a container. That's why the globe is a cartoon. It violates natural law. It doesn't comport with reality. Tyler says, as a career pilot, everything Nathan said about aviation was ignorant or dishonest.

Nathan is leaving the building. Potato Man says, Nathan, isn't your idea of quote Snoop Dogg fallacy idiotic?

No, you don't need to get high to test the floor. Actually, it's easier to test the floor from the floor. I don't know why if you're trying to test the floor, you would move away from the floor. That, to me, seems kind of idiotic. If it was curving in all directions, we would see that tangent to our feet, especially at large bodies of water, because large bodies of water painted on Will's little model take up 70% of the Earth's surface. They would have to curve, and they don't.

this one from shardock says who fingers are you done lying about specular sorry i didn't realize it said poo fingers i just read it uh they say nathan fingers are you done lying about specular reflections being exclusive to your cult doctrine they happen on most smooth surfaces even herved

No, you need a smooth surface. If you go to the House of Mirrors at the circus, which is probably where Chardock works, I know he's Santa during Christmas time, but the House of Mirrors has curved surfaces and there's distortion in the image. So you don't get a perfect mirror image, a specular reflection off of a curved surface. You need a flat surface for that. The incident angle has to meet the reflected angle. That only happens on a flat surface, guys.

General E Shady says F modern day debate. Your chat is uncontrolled. Channel sucks. Thanks for that feedback. And I see spin says I used to play Nate, Nate goose as a child. I miss it. Potato man says, Nathan, you say the math doesn't lie. Can you do the math?

Nathan. Mr. X, the agnostic says, Will, are you considering taking people on the space perspective balloon to see curvature? The final experiment part two. I didn't know about this. What is this, Will? I'm not. No, but I am going to be releasing a video soon. Creaky, who runs the channel Creaky Blinder.

is going to be sending up a weather balloon because flat earthers claim that if you send up a weather balloon, it will not show curvature. And so that's why I'm going to be supporting creaky and asking flat earthers what camera and lens they will accept for that weather balloon. And I'm anticipating that most flat earthers are going to pull a Nathan Thompson and refuse to state what camera

uh lens and camera they will accept by the way nathan what you don't realize is that if you truly believe that we will see no curvature with the weather balloon you should jump all over this mr x the agnostic says we're oh we got that one evil banana wind says nathan what is your highest education level completed nathan debunking global issues

You got it. With that, we are going to wrap up. We do appreciate our guests. I want to give a huge thank you. Folks, the guests are the lifeblood of the channel. Check out their links. Seriously, we really do appreciate them. I know that I tease and I play. Eventually, I will tease Will once I just know him a little bit more. I'll give him some teasing more. You just have to build rapport. But Nathan's been on for a long time. So despite my teasing, we do appreciate him.

We do appreciate Will. It's an interesting, the final experiment. What an interesting thing. Like this is something that, has this ever mentioned, has this ever mentioned on Joe Rogan by chance or any, like, has that gotten picked up? Yeah. Yeah. Joe Rogan has mentioned it. It was in the Jerusalem Post. It's been all over the world. Wow. That's cool. That's crazy. Like that's big stuff.

It's on Wikipedia. So yeah, it's, it's a big deal. So the, the flat earth debate has been forever changed. It's going to be very difficult for flat earthers in the future to have a conversation about flat earth without having to deal with the final experiment. That's wild. Just because, uh, and you're, uh, it's interesting just that, um,

Yeah, this is fascinating. So I do want to say thank you to our guests. Folks, they're linked in the description box right now. In fact, the final experiment is actually hyperlinked in the title. If you click on their links, you can go and hear more of their content right now. Even if you disagree, you're like, I don't like that position at all.

There's a lot of value from hearing it firsthand rather than hearing like, oh, you know, I listened to my buddy who shares my view. He summarizes what the other side says and then he debunks it. It's like, well, frankly, you'd probably be getting a stronger representation of it if you went straight to the source. So I do want to encourage you, do check out these guys' links, even if you disagree with them. And it's been a true pleasure to have you guys. Thank you guys. This has been a fun and lively debate.

We appreciate you spending your time with us tonight. Thanks, James, for hosting. Nathan, I do appreciate you doing this, man. So thanks for playing. At Emory University, we believe in those with the ambition to achieve, the passion to learn, and the optimism to see the possibilities ahead.

Founded on a belief that the wise heart seeks knowledge. An Emory education combines experiential learning in Atlanta and beyond with unrivaled collaboration and discovery. All to prepare you for a world that needs your leadership. Learn more at emory.edu.

Angel Reese and McDonald's have the key to a post-game meal of champions. A QPC with barbecue and bacon, potatoes, and a soda. The pros call it the Angel Reese Special. Get the Angel Reese Special only at McDonald's. At McDonald's, participants for a limited time.