DEBATE | @IronHorse1722 VS @adhd_projects | Flat Earth Vs Globe
02:26:33 Share

California summer adventures are calling. Get out there and explore behind the wheel of a brand new Toyota Hybrid with 17 fuel-efficient vehicles to choose from, like the all-hybrid Camry, adventure-ready RAV4 Hybrid, or the roomy Grand Highlander Hybrid. Toyota has the hybrid for you. Every new Toyota comes with ToyotaCare, a two-year complimentary scheduled maintenance plan, an exclusive hybrid battery warranty, and of course, Toyota's legendary quality and reliability.

Visit your local Toyota dealer and test drive one today. Toyota, let's go places. See your local Toyota dealer for hybrid battery warranty details. Soy Kristi Noem, Secretaria de Seguridad Nacional de Estados Unidos. Advertencia, no entren a nuestro país ilegalmente. El viaje es peligroso y al final los atraparemos y los enviaremos de regreso. Bajo la presidencia de Trump, más de 100,000 inmigrantes ilegales han sido arrestados y las tropas custodian nuestras fronteras. Ahora, los inmigrantes ilegales pueden acceder

Autodeportarse para evitar multas y encarcelamiento usando nuestra aplicación CBP Home. Estados Unidos cumplirá con sus leyes y protegerá a sus ciudadanos.

Good evening, everybody, and welcome to Modern Day Debate. I'm your host, Ryan, this evening. We're going to get right into it. Flat versus Globe, we have Ross versus ADHD Projects. So thank you, everybody, for being here. Smash that like button while it's good, while the going's hot, and let's get it over to Ross Thatcher. Thank you for being here again. The floor is all yours. Thanks very much, Ryan. Well, good morning, good afternoon, good evening, and good night, wherever you might be on the stationary plane or air.

It never ceases to amaze me how anyone who doesn't take the Flat Earth seriously would even want to debate against it. I've yet to see anyone seriously debating against SpongeBob SquarePants, My Little Pony, or even Star Trek, Star Wars, Doctor Who, or Sherlock Holmes. When something is a known fiction, rational-minded people seem not to concern themselves with those who become fascinated or even fanatical with the concept. We just tend to shrug it off, each to their own, whatever.

But when it comes to the stationary planet Earth fixed at the base of the universe, suddenly all these closet pseudo-intellectuals step into the limelight, thinking they've finally found an avenue to stomp their boot of authority onto a subject even the SpongeBob-only Trek fans will approve of, without even the slightest clue of what they're getting themselves into, much less what they're even arguing for or against.

We've witnessed the final retreat of multiple grifters attempting to profit off of flat earth, which has all seen the human butt plug going by the moniker something like, bite the fat toad, infamous very straw man introduction claiming that flat earthers think we live on a disk floating in space. Yet flat earth proponents have never ever claimed such a thing. At least, not the realistic sensible flat earthers who know what they're talking about.

Some idiots might suggest we're on a constant upwards acceleration, but such fools are only there to muddy the waters of this fixed, immovable physical realm sitting at the base of the observable universe. Our true model consistently maintains that we are not in space at all, as a pressurized atmosphere would be absolutely impossible despite the magical powers attributed to the very weak non-force of gravity.

We might imagine, for example, that the stationary plane around us fixed at the base of the universe is infinite, just as the space cadets assume an infinite expanding universe around us. But for now, we're happy to accept that certain unknowns can remain unknowns until we know otherwise.

No knowns, however, cannot be denied. Apart from earthquakes, no motion of the Earth has ever been detected. The average heliowist imagines we're spinning one and a third times the speed of sound as we rocket 10 times faster than a railgun projectile through a vacuum of space, carrying every whopping cloud capable of moving multiple different directions at different heights, hovering helicopters and hot air balloons,

every flying insect and dandelion seed, every storm and every hurricane and every leaf fluttering from a tree, all along at these phenomenal speeds in just the perfect manner to create the illusion that Earth is standing perfectly still. Who needs miracles when everyday reality is a million times more miraculous than the simple act of walking on water or raising the dead? Or my favourite trick of turning good beer into urine. LOL.

Meanwhile, a river such as the Nile flows to the ocean with a mere 1.6 mile elevation drop from Lake Victoria to the Mediterranean Sea over more than 4,000 miles of distance. This means it must flow up and over more than 2,000 miles of curvature on the globe to get there. And it's a given fact of nature that water can only flow downhill, whichever direction it may take to reach the next level.

The globetard is left standing with his pants around his ankles as he demonstrates how water flows downhill on his fantasy ball. It simply cannot and will not happen, much less with its spinning and gyrating with a pressurised atmosphere through a vacuum of space they insist must be there. The mental gymnastics our hillyotard brethren are forced to perform should become a modern-day Olympic event, because here we find the greatest glaring gap in logical paradoxes since Philip Fry travelled back in time to become his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather.

On the one hand of their fantasy ball belief, they'll insist everything is pulled towards a hypothetical centre by a hypothetical but essential pulling force of mass attracting mass relative to the mass and distance of every other thing, and then try to argue that topography is simply greater elevation away from the centre where gravity should be weaker. The obvious properties of relative density and buoyancy escape them until they agree with them in favour of their fantasy forces that are necessary to make the impossible possible.

Next, they'll insist that they can see beyond the curvature due to the magical properties of refraction, turning the atmosphere into a magical landscape periscope, and that even a slight gain in height will allow them to see beyond the sun set a second time, despite the fact the horizon is at least a good five kilometres or three miles away in the distance. They simply don't know their own model because they've never lived on such a model. Reality has no curvature, and viewing distance is simply limited by multiple conditions, most of which can be explained by being so tiny and low.

They've no concept of how convergence and perspective works, but superstitious beliefs from ancient Greeks works perfectly fine for them despite the modern digital zoom camera and high-attitude balloon footage. The bamboozlement of the global thinking has them blinded to reality. They'll interpret convergence as curvature because their tiny brains know no better. Their blinkered opinion of what their minds want to see is falsely interpreted into a false reality that fits their brainwashed fantasy.

The realist understands that getting higher allows us to see beyond the obstacles previously in the way and increases the angle of view towards a greater panorama always rising up to higher level. Where we do detect this so-called dip angle, it's simply because most of what's beneath us is actually clear air, which we can see through. We never claim that horizon physically rises to our level. It's simply an illusion of perspective where everything always converges towards the center of view, the way we perceive depth and distance even on a two-dimensional image.

Everything the Globers have back-engineered from the reality of the stationary planet Earth has a far more logical and rational explanation from the point of view of the flat Earthers. Even star trails appearing to go in reverse either side of the equator has a rational explanation. However, a debate is hardly the place to be giving lessons that might take many hours to contemplate and study before you can understand.

In very simple terms, when two people are facing each other, they can argue vehemently which direction is left and which is right. Though in all fairness, they'll probably both agree, which is our very simple terms. When two people are facing each other, they can argue which is right. But not from...

It's obscured as imaginary and arbitrary because suddenly now every direction is simultaneously up and down. You just have to believe in the imaginary center to find some common ground or molten, ironic, non-magnetic, common core belief that can bring you to consensus.

On the stationary plane of Earth, we might consider the Sun to be akin to the hour hand of a 24-hour clock. If we set this clock to a very precise mechanical fixed measure of time to a sundial in the courtyard, we will find midday coinciding every day at 12 p.m. The spinning space ball model, however, has the Earth rotating a fixed period of time on its axis every day, which they call sidereal time. Then imagine an extra four minutes per day of rotation to keep the sundial matching the mechanical clock.

This is a complete and utter contradiction of all logic, all mechanics, and all measure of fixed amount of time. They're only of a 360 degrees in a circle and the 24-hour mechanical clock. You cannot just add a little in order to match an ancient superstitious belief. Without adding a little every day, as much as four minutes per day, in a globe model, with the very fact there's 24 of them around the equator, as we would expect,

Yet because the world shrinks into the magnetic northern centre like the segments of a dartboard or a pizza, we find there's only 19 time zones in towards the centre. Yet in the much larger outer region, the south, with the word 'out' written right within its own spell casting, we find as many as 32 different time zones. Many simply go unnoticed because vast areas of the Pacific remain uninhabited and the international date line is cleverly crafted to hide the missing three hours across the Bering Strait while adding additional hours in the far south.

I have a video approximately 24 minutes long on one of my playlists about the Flat Earth model for anyone who cares to discover this fact for themselves.

Again, a debate is hardly the place to be giving lectures on true earth facts that take hours of study, but I'd like to see my opponent come up for at least one or two arguable facts to represent his fantasy ball spinning through hypothetical space to at least present something credible in support of his ancient superstitious fantasy gifted to us by religious sun worshippers desperate to place the sun in the centre of their devoted beliefs.

I say the globe indoctrinated belief is an attempt to hide other lands, invoke scarcity on this realm, remove all hope of spreading out to greater, more wealth and opportunity, imprison us within a tiny thought bubble that belittles our true humanity and our creator, and that the denial of who we really are and where we come from prevents us from knowing who we really are and where we're really going.

Flat earth is way bigger than just knowing about where we come from. It leads us towards where we really should be heading. And if that means a greater awareness of our creator, then I'll be proud to know that I played my role in this final act to make it happen. The Stockholm Syndrome sufferers standing in the way may now step aside. I'm Iron Horse, and I will faithfully carry Christ consciousness into this realm from any dimension I am asked to. I bend to the will of creator, and I will not be bamboozled by the lies of the great deceiver.

What have you got, Glabey? All right, well, we're going to hand it over to ADHD Projects. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you to Ross for your introductory statement. If this is your first time here at Modern Day Debate, we welcome you. We're a neutral platform hosting debates on science, politics, religion. We do hope you feel welcome and that you go ahead and smash the like button. Let us know if you like what you're seeing here or if you don't. And we're also going to put up a poll in a second here so you can let us know what you do think.

Finally, I will say that both speakers are going to take super chats at the end. So if you have questions for either speaker, something that they said just really got underneath your skin, you just got to flesh it out. Well, put it in a super chat and we will read it at the end. First come, first serve. So you'll get priority there if you have a super chat in. So let's hand it over to ADHD. Thank you so much for being here and dealing with the housekeeping.

All right, awesome. I do have a presentation. All right, let me know if you can see that. Yep, we sure can. Okay, perfect. So, flat earth debate. I live in Utah, and I like to travel to California on vacation. And during that vacation in California, we go to the beach. While on the beach, you can look out over the ocean and see...

boats. And I've noticed that these boats disappear behind a horizon, which is really, really odd. And so I decided to look into these boats disappearing beyond the horizon. I've got some pictures here of a boat that appears to be sinking. I doubt that it's actually sinking. And then some wind turbines that are off the coast that are halfway submerged. Even their propellers here are underneath the horizon.

Another observation that I was able to make while on the coast is while you watch the sunset, the sun will set from your left shoulder to your right. So if you're looking directly at the sun, it kind of moves in a slight angle going down. Now this is important to note later on, I will come back to this.

Another thing to note is in the Northern Hemisphere, we can look at the North Star and see that all the stars rotate around in a circle around it, showing that there is a central point that all of the stars are rotated around, which both me and Flat Earthers, we agree on for the Northern Hemisphere.

However, things start to get dicey when we go to the southern hemisphere. So this last year, I actually flew to Australia and I made some observations there as well. This is me with a white kangaroo. And then I was in Australia at the same time that they were in Antarctica proving the globe. And so this is my debunk of Angels of Light's debunk of MC2 in Antarctica.

So while I was flying there, I made another observation. This is the Theodolite app that you can download on. I have it on my iPhone. I assume that they've got the same on any Android phone. And so you can use it and it tells you where your eye level is. So that little cross there in the center shows what eye level is. You can see this is right at sunrise, okay?

And the Sun is below eye level, which is very interesting that the Sun would be below eye level when we're in a plane. So maybe the plane is over the Sun or perhaps the Earth is a globe. Those are the only two options.

Another observation I made was the sun sets from right to left. When you were watching the sun, it will move from right to left. This is in contrast to the sunset in the northern hemisphere moving from left to right.

So they're kind of going opposite directions. And in the southern hemisphere, this is pretty problematic for the flat Earth, because the flat Earth says that it goes in a clockwise manner around flat Earth, and this is actually cutting the opposite direction that the flat Earth claims.

So here's another, this is the side by sides. In the Northern hemisphere, the sun will set left to right in the equator. It will set kind of straight down. And then in the Southern hemisphere, it sets left to right, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If you assume that the earth is flat. However, if you assume that it is a globe, those, that those,

setting deviations start to make sense because we are on a sphere. Now, another observation that we can make while in the southern hemisphere is that the southern stars rotate around a central point. I've seen a lot of flat earthers and globers cut hairs on the direction. I don't care about the direction. I care about the fact that they are rotating around the center point. That just cannot happen on a flat earth.

The only way that this can be explained is if we are on a globe and we are spinning with the globe, we have a northern and a southern pole star. Well, a northern and a southern pole that we are rotating around. In the north, we do have a pole star. In the south, Cygna Octantis is close, but it's hard to see with the naked eye.

And yes, I know this image is actually from Chile. I wasn't able to get a picture of it while I was in Australia, but Chile is still in the Southern Hemisphere and still proves the point.

And so this is a observation made from the equator. It's just like the other star trails, except this one is using a really wide angle camera. That's why we get the distortions around the top to look at the star trails. In the center, it is going straight. On both sides, it is going around the central points of each pole.

This is explained perfectly on the globe, but impossible on the flat Earth. And no amount of magical perspective can wave it away because that's just not how perspective works. One of the biggest proofs of the globe is an Eratosthenes style experiment. Now we can argue all day if Eratosthenes was real or not. That doesn't matter.

What matters is that we can make this observation today and prove that the Earth is a globe. A lot of flat earthers will say with two observational points, it works out. But when we start to add more and more observation points, it gets less and less. It doesn't make sense on the flat Earth perspective.

So we have our first observer directly underneath the sun, the second one making that angle with the shadow. I like to use angles of elevation, but it's typical to use shadows. And as you go out on a flat earth, these shadow lengths will have a linear growth as you move away from underneath the sun.

However, when you are on a globe, these shadows, they make a parabolic, they grow exponentially as you go away from it because you're angling more and more back, making the shadow longer and longer. So no, you cannot just replicate it on a flat Earth. That's not how it works. It can only be done on a globe.

And I don't have a picture for this last one, but the biggest proof that we are on a globe is the fact that there is a 24-hour sun in Antarctica. Several flat earthers and several globe earthers went in December to see the 24-hour sun in Antarctica. Witsikitsa and Jaronism both went as flat earthers saying, we're going to debunk the globe once and for all. When they saw a 24-hour sun, Jaronism left flat earth.

Witsit has been running ever since. That is undeniable proof that the Earth is a globe. There is no way around the 24-hour sun in Antarctica unless you are calling Witsit gets it and Jarenism a liar straight up. That's the only way that you can get out of that observation. That's it. That's all my time.

Well, I mean, you do technically have two minutes, but yeah, let's move into that open discussion. Yeah. You're kind of, you're following the formula there that I'd said before we started. It works pretty good for the audience. So hopefully you like that. It was a little shorter and sweeter. Uh,

Well, short and sweet. Yeah, I won't let anybody read into that. They get all wild. So once again, we're going to take Super Chats at the end of the discussion. This is going to be a lot of fun. So once again, smash the like button. We do appreciate all the support here at Modern Day Debate and keeping these conversations happening. So can I hand it over to you, Ross, to respond to some of the things that you just heard and why you might agree or disagree. So whenever you're ready.

Right, yeah. So I definitely agree to disagree. I mean, if you can't understand simple perspective by now, you probably never will get it. If you're going to assume that convergence means curvature, then I think there's something missing in your brain by this stage in the process of working out how perspective works, that you're just never going to get it. You're just like too far gone. If you can understand that

that convergence is always going to have everything beneath you ramp up towards eye level in perspective, not in reality. And it's going to create a convergence point, which is going to hide things further than you. Then yes, it's going to make it look like the bottom of ships or those,

are going to appear lower than you. Can you show that? Assume that that means curvature is just complete and utter retardation. Sorry. So your very, very first argument is you're too stupid to understand, so I'm not even going to try. That shows that you don't actually know, you don't actually have a good explanation for it.

So I want you to go into the laws of perspective and show me how something that is lower than you can obscure something that is higher than you. It's very, very simple. It's straightforward. It's in your way. It's getting in the way of something. You know, you can just look down a simple brick wall and move yourself up and down, looking across this brick wall, looking down the length of it. And you will see every single line that are all parallel.

parallel to one another are all converging towards the horizontal one that's always at eye level. Right, we agree about converging, but the thing is... It's gonna hide the things in the distance from you because of that perspective. So the problem is if you're looking at that brick wall and then you put a boat on that brick wall, the brick wall is never going to hide the boat.

I don't put boats on brick walls. Boats go on the water. Okay, so if you put a wall, if you put anything on that brick wall and then move it away from you, that brick wall is never going to obscure that thing.

No, no, the brick wall is just a demonstration of how perspective works. The water is always going to be beneath your feet. Hang on a sec. The water is always beneath your feet and it's always going to be appearing to rise up to eye level at the horizontal in the far distance. But it never obscures your view. It is going to disappear bottom first in the distance because the convergence factor is going to hide it.

Well don't try and talk over me and I won't have to talk louder. You're talking over me just as much, dude. So there's nothing in the laws of perspective that can make flat water

obscure a boat as it moves away from you. That's not how perspective works. Me and you agree. Stop denying reality. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. You're just not mad at me for talking over you, but you're doing the same thing to me. It is fair. Hold on, hold on. It is fair. We don't want to, I don't want to put you guys onto the muted rounds. Nobody likes that.

But let's give ADHD a little space there to respond and then try to keep the flow there. Okay. All right. All right. To both of you, of course. But I'm handing it over to you, ADHD. So go ahead. Okay. So if we have a flat surface that is completely 100% flat, like Flatirther's claim, or really, really near to it, like the water is that you claim,

As you go out, it's never going to obscure. Yes, things will get smaller and harder to see. However, things will never obscure from bottom up. That's just not how perspective works. I can always draw a line out to it, and that line will never go underneath the ground.

That's just not how perspective. Can you, will you please draw out how that perspective works? Because perspective is something that you can draw. Can you please draw a, how that perspective works for me, please?

I could draw it, but I just don't see the point in wasting my time doing so because you're always going to have obstructions on that surface that are going to obscure things because they are nearer to you. You can have waves and swell, wind chop, that's going to appear bigger. So as the thing diminishes in angular size,

due to getting further away, it's just going to be hidden bottom first. But you can zoom in on many things that are already beyond the so-called horizon. It's just that our eyes have very limited abilities to see so far. So if you have a digital zoom camera, you can zoom in on the things that have apparently disappeared and find that the horizon is actually way beyond where they actually are.

actually are but we just it's so low to the surface we're going to have the things in front in between us not getting diminished in size so much it's just going to obscure it and make it look as though it's disappearing bottom first it's a very great illusion that's worked for hundreds and hundreds of years but now we know better it's not curvature

Okay, so you won't draw out for me. There's nothing in the laws of perspective that support what you're saying. When you are standing up on the shore looking out and there's waves in between you and the boat, the only way that that wave can obscure the part on the boat that you're looking at is if that wave is taller than you.

because two things that are this high are not going to be obscured by something that is lower than both of them. That's just... No, no, no. That's just how things work. You're only six foot high, and you're looking across at least three miles. I appreciate you thinking that I'm six foot high. That's a massive distance in comparison. If I'm going to draw a diagram to scale, I would draw a person one millimeter high, and I'd draw a line...

to the horizon from his feet and a line from his eyes and that line would be three meters long. So I've got to do one millimeter and three meters just to draw it to scale.

That's how big the world is. The world is massive, and what we're seeing is really, really tiny and insignificant. It's nothing. It's not even a speck on a map that sees three miles to the horizon. And yet you think, oh, we'll see the whole world from where we stand. It's just nonsense. Don't strawman me. I never said that. Did I say that? Don't strawman me. Well...

You're arguing with me. You're arguing with me. Don't strawman my position. I never said you can see the entire flat earth at one time. I said that boats disappearing over the curve is a problem for you because no laws of perspective can fix that. There's nothing that you can do. You cannot draw it out. You cannot draw it out.

You will not draw it out because you know that you cannot. That's why you said you wouldn't, just because you cannot. That's right, because you can't draw infinity. When we're looking at the horizon, we're looking into infinity. When a boat disappears, it's not disappearing over a curvature at all, because we can, and we have, zoomed them back into view way, way further than what the globe calculation maths show. Let's

Let's see it. Can I show you? No, no. You should have known it by now. You should have been able to have done your own research and realized that, yes. Okay. So we're making unsubstantiated claims. Unsubstantiated. They're fully substantiated. We have zoomed in to ship. We are here in the debate here. You say they've gone over the curve. Why don't you prove it? You can't prove it. They haven't gone over any curvature. If they did go over the curvature, they'd go nose first. We'd see the bottom end coming up.

We've never ever seen that. No, you would not. It absolutely isn't what you would expect to see. You're just lying. You think that it's a hill. It is not a hill. I'm not lying. Don't call me a liar. A curvature should go all directions. It doesn't just be in the distance like a big massive tube. It goes all directions. We've never seen a left to right curvature ever. Yes, we have. So it does go in all directions. It's my turn to talk, dude. It's your turn to lie.

I don't do that. Because the entire time you've been here, you've just insulted me. You don't know me. Don't insult me unless you know me. I'm not insulting you personally. I'm just insulting your intelligence. No, you have insulted me. The entire thing you said in your presentation was to insult my intelligence. The very first thing you said when we got out of the presentation was to insult my intelligence. Yeah, you're intelligent.

What? My intelligence? Is that your ego? I don't think so, no. That's your ego. Okay, that's cool. It's not your fault you're brainwashed into believing nonsense, you know? That's unfortunate. It's a fact of life. You're the one that's brainwashed into not... You're brainwashed into not understanding how perspective works. You can't even draw out how the perspective works. You refuse to because you know that you cannot. You will not show a boat coming back

from being zoomed out because you know that they're all ridiculous. You cannot show a boat that is halfway submerged like I showed you being zoomed back in. You cannot do that. You know that and that's why you make up the excuse, I'm on my phone and I can't show anything because you never ever present proof.

Do you know how much curvature should exist in just three miles? It should be six feet. In 10 miles, it's 66 feet. In 100 miles, you're talking more than a mile of curvature drop. And yet we can zoom in on things 100 miles away and see there is no drop. Prove it. Let's see it. Let's see it right now. There's a claim. Prove it. Do you know how tall the tallest building in the world is? There's a claim. Bring it up. Show it. It's called the Burj Khalifa. Half a mile.

is the height of the Burj Khalifa. Over the Suez Canal, there should be more than two Burj Khalifas have dropped from one end to the other, and yet it is proven. You can see pictures of it going completely flat from one end to the next. This is a debate. Bring your proof. You don't have proof. Show it. You have five zero proof.

All you have is trust me, bro. Come on. Bring up the truth. You can try and prove me wrong. Where we've already concluded that Ross is not going to have the ability to share this debate, maybe what you could do, Ross, is if you could tell Eamon here...

what he would need to show, you know, that you think is lacking. And then maybe he might be able to provide that so we can move through some of this. So what would he have to show to you so that you guys can kind of dig into that and maybe you can discuss why you don't find what he's going to present to you is, you know, compelling. So I'll hand it back to you there, Ross.

I think the idea of a debate is we're here to argue the theory and the philosophy of things. We're not here to present evidence. People want to go outside of the debate and study the evidence for themselves and find pictures and images that prove otherwise. They can prove curvature. They can prove two Burj Khalifas have dropped across the Suez Canal. You're most welcome to. But there's so much evidence that I could...

fill up an entire encyclopedia Britannica of information and we wouldn't have time to get through the debate. We're here to discuss the known fact. If you've got evidence of Kovachar, please present it. Maybe that's what we could do here. If you want to do any screen shares or just respond, it's up to you, ADHD. I'm open either way, but go ahead. I mean, he's just admitted that he doesn't have proof. So the thing is,

We're here to look at the evidence. And he's already said that there is no proof to back up what he's saying. He claims that there is so much evidence that he could fill up encyclopedias worth. Well, why didn't you just bring one of them? If you've got so much of them, I hear this all the time. I have so much evidence to back up the firm and it is real. Okay, let's see it. Well, there's just too much to choose from. And then they just never, ever show that evidence.

The same thing is happening here with you, Ross, is that you say, there is so much evidence to prove me right that I won't show it. Trust me, bro. That's hilarious. That's absolutely hilarious because you globetards are always saying, we've got all the evidence. And every time I ask you guys to bring one piece of evidence to prove we live on a spinning space ball hurtling through a vacuum of space, you just say, well, we've got it all, but you can't bring anything. So I dare you to bring something. Let's see.

Observation one, boats going over the horizon. Observation two, the fact that the sun goes different directions in different hemispheres. Observation three would be star rotations. I mean, did you even listen to my thing? I even showed pictures of it all. I had the evidences. I showed that the sun is below eye level while you're in a plane, which is a major problem for the flat Earth, unless you think that the sun is somehow below 40,000 feet. Yeah.

All right, let's hand it over to Ross. He had something in his hands there I think you were trying to refer to. Maybe we can...

That's right. I took a lot of notes and we're going straight back to his first one then. Well, the first one was hidden by convergence. The second point was the left to right nonsense. That works exactly the same on the stationary plane of Earth. If you're sitting in a room and you've got a laser light, for example, and you just shown it across from one side.

Let's call that side east and that side west. And you just go, boom, across the room. Oh, it's going from right to left. Now you sit on the other side of the room and you're still going to go from east to west, but now it's going from left to right. It's all a matter of perspective. And that's how it works on the stationary plane of earth because we're looking up at

very, very high thing from a very, very long, far distance away. And that's exactly how it should occur on the stationary planet Earth, no matter how much you misinterpret it to make it look like you think, oh, it only works on a spinning space ball hurtling through space 10 times faster than a railgun projector. I mean, what the heck? Who would think we could possibly be moving that fast in the first place? Are you going to let me respond to your laser point before you go on to different things?

It's the same thing. It's all part and parcel. Yes or no? Are you going to let me respond to your laser point analogy? Go for it. Okay, great. So your laser point analogy was not what I was talking about. I was talking about as the sun is going behind the horizon, we are looking directly at the sun. So in your analogy, it'd be like two people both looking at the wall, and then you shine the laser down the wall. One person sees the laser move

from his left to his right. The other person sees the laser move from his right to his left. We're not looking parallel to the laser going like this. We're looking directly at the wall as the laser moves down the wall.

Now, one person sees it going one way. The other person sees it going the opposite way. This is a major problem, especially, especially on the flat Earth where you say that the sun goes around in a giant circle in between the tropics. If you're in Australia and you see it go around in a circle, you should see it cut to the right majorly.

Majorly. Because it has to travel such a distance and move so fast to get around that circle, it is already cutting to the right before it gets too far to see on the flat Earth. So...

In Australia, you are seeing opposite of what should happen on the flat earth. On the flat earth, it should go and move to the right, go from left to right, because it's cutting around in a circle. You don't see that. You see it going right to left, which is opposite of what the flat earth, what is expected on the flat earth. Let's hand it over. And let's do our best not to interrupt and give us some space to respond.

Because that's just ridiculous because you've got absolutely zero grasp of the sense of scale of what we're talking about here. Here in Australia, it's the same deal. We can only see three, four, five miles to our personal local horizon.

We're not seeing half of the freaking sky above the Earth at any given moment in time, which is what you seem to be assuming we should be able to see the sun doing. It's only going from three miles this side to three miles that side. And on the scale of things, that should only give us one or two hours of daylight.

But obviously, that's not how it works. The way it works is that we're just seeing a personal perspective of the sun through the atmosphere, through our local atmosphere, doing what it does. But we're not going to see what it's doing over the entire 25,000 miles circumference equator of the world. I mean, come on. Okay, so...

It can be daylight in both Australia and South America, correct? At the same time, right? You can stand in Australia and see the sun, and you can stand in South America and see the sun, correct? Not so likely. Not likely, but... Not likely? You're saying no to that? Well...

You're saying no to that? Oh my gosh, let's go to Thailand dates. I'm saying it's actually going to be midnight in South America when it's midday in Australia. And you can check the time zone. And no, you will not see the sun at the same time. Go do some Google check. That's fine. Nothing like checking your facts in the middle of a debate that you don't know anything about. No, I'm checking your facts in the middle of the debate. Let's go to the world's...

All right, we got 250-odd watching right now. If you guys want to smack that like button and try to boost us up in the algorithm, we are live right now. This is happening on screen. I can see you guys with all kinds of things to say in the live chat there. In the meantime, he brings up Shadows of Stix. All right, no, we're not moving on. So, in Australia, what time is it for you now? For me now, it is nearly 10 to 11. Yeah, it's about 11 o'clock, right? Do you know what time it is in Chile? Chile?

No, I don't actually. It's about nine o'clock p.m. At night? Yes. Yeah. So it's like a good 40 minutes difference. So it's nighttime right now, but during the summer, which it is not, it is winter for you guys, right? Summer, your days are longer, right? Our daylight hours are longer, correct. Is the sun in the sky for longer? Yeah.

Every single day is 24 hours. The daylight hours is longer after the equinox in December. Is the sun in the sky longer? Yes or no? Yes, our daylight hours are longer during the summer. Sun. Sun. Is the sun in the sky longer? Well, how else would we get sunlight if it wasn't? Okay, so you're saying daylight, but I want you to say, yes, the sun is in the sky longer.

The sun appears in our sky longer, yes. Okay, great, awesome. So it's when you have much longer days. Right, so it is possible during your summer that in South America and in Australia you both have sunlight. That's possible because as you can see, the very tip of South America is

Ushuaia, it gets up to 18 hours of daylight hours. 18 hours a day? On the summer solstice. On the summer solstice. That's crazy, isn't it? That is so much time for the sun to be in the sky, right?

But you're saying that you can only see the sun about three miles out. We've found so much other evidence that debunks that stupid idea in the first place. That proves the globe, but there's so much other evidence that debunks it. We don't need to find evidence to support

why they get extra daylight hours. Yes, you do. Absolutely, you do. It is a problem for Flat Earth. We just have to find another explanation, which I have found, which works with what I've described as the Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds theory, is that the sunlight coming through our filament works a lot like a... I can't think of the word now. Anyway... Are you the guy that thinks that the dome is faceted?

Yes, that's the one. Yeah. Oh boy. Okay. Yeah. Okay. You have zero proof for that. You just say, well, I need it to work. So I'm going to make up some random thing that doesn't make any sense. And it will prove for it because the explanation, by all means, please prove a facet. The whole, the whole point of science is first you make the observation.

Then you make the hypothesis. Okay, but you just said there was proof. Let's see proof. And if you can't debunk the hypothesis, then that hypothesis then becomes a known sort of fact. But if you can't debunk it... What? I need you to say that again. You can't just laugh at it and say, oh, you're the guy who thinks of the facets. Say it again. I want you to say that again. It matches the observations. Say that again. Okay, so you said you create a hypothesis...

And then if you can't prove that hypothesis wrong, that's the truth.

It stands as the best current explanation until you come up with a better one. So if you can't come up with a better one, because you think we're on a spinning space ball that's the better one. That is ridiculous. Everything about the, every fact of physics, the nature of reality, the nature, the properties of matter, pressurized gases cannot be contained by a vacuum. Everything destroys. So let's not hop scotch away.

Let's talk about your faceted firmament. No, no, no. We're talking about one topic at a time. Don't hop, scotch away. I want you to give me your best proof for a faceted firmament. The fact that we had identical appearing sky star trails in the south.

It sort of works. The fact that we have a 24-hour sun in Antarctica, it works. But how? That's circular logic, is that you need it to work, so there's a faceted... I don't have time to give you a two-hour lecture on this sort of stuff. This is the sort of stuff you could have studied in advance. One single proof.

This is the sort of thing you could have studied in advance and tried to debunk. It matches observations. I'm not supposed to guess your argument. I'm supposed to back up mine.

That's right. But you've done nothing. Then why are you asking me to guess your argument ahead of time and debunk it ahead of time? I want you to present your argument and present your reasoning behind that argument. Your reason is, I really, really need 24 hours under work. So I'm going to make up some BS about a faceted firmament that I cannot prove. I cannot show working and just say that that works, even though every single observation that we make

is for a globe things disappear below the horizon the north and southern star star trails going around a singular point that proves that the earth is a globe but i really really don't want it to so i'm going to make up some bs that i cannot prove and then i'm going to say well you should have debunked it ahead of time i need you to present evidence have you ever actually watched

serious genuine 24 hour seven sun in the north in the hemisphere the sun will do this sort of

sign wave around the horizon. Depends on where you're at, yes. Further away, the sky gets darker and the sun gets smaller and then as it gets nearer, the sun gets larger and the sky brightens up. The Antarctic 24-hour 7 sun does nothing even remotely close to that. So that's not from the... It's obviously faked. And we've proven it's faked. So...

You haven't proven it's fake. Prove it fake. Prove it fake. Prove it fake. Prove it fake. Prove it fake. Prove it fake. Yes, you are. Do it.

Why can't you do it? You keep saying you've proven it, but you never show up. I was on your TikTok today, scrolling and scrolling. I went back a year and you didn't prove it fake. I went and watched your other debates here and you didn't prove it fake. Where have you proved it fake? Show me. I'm not here to prove something is fake. That's not how proof works. Proof is where the burden of evidence rests with he who makes the positive claim. So if she can prove it's real, go for it. But you can't.

You won't because it's not real. So saying it's not real is a truth claim. You're saying it is. That's right. It was faked. That is a truth claim. You have to prove that it was faked just as much as I have to prove that it was real. Right. My proof is that that it was real is that they have video footages of it, of them there. Yeah.

uh they have all of the data of them being there they were on the flights you can check the manifests you can they had trackers on them that you could track actively that is proof that they were there if you don't like that proof you now have to prove that it was fake that is a truth claim that you now have to prove did he not fight you know this comes down to a simple thing where we've got

videos of witless saying he uh vaped and we've got videos of witless saying he didn't vape yeah i agree he's a liar i don't know why he's like

He obviously vaped. Yeah, because he's paid out. That's obviously why. It's obviously why. Like, Jaron is paid out. They're not flat earthers. They never were. They were in it for the money. Nice, nice cop-out. I'm just in it for the story, for the truth. I don't care about the money, okay? I've got myself a side gig. I earn a daily living. I don't need to make money off the flat earth. I don't either.

trying to make a lifestyle out of flat earth and so they're never going to represent us truthfully or honestly so they they don't stand for us they don't speak for us they've all been the same and um yeah even back in the day you know bob nodal used to be correcting jaron all the time because jaron was just coming up with some sort of nonsense and bob was his genuine truth and he was telling the truth he was saying genuine truth that proved the glove actually i think hey

genuine truth that proved the globe and then said that if it ever got that if it ever got out it would be bad he proved a 15 degree per hour drift which is exactly what i've said the sun would be doing no matter where it was on the hour hand of a 24 hour clock whether it be right near the north pole or all the way out to the end so what was being detected 15 degree per hour how is how is it detecting the sun that's defining

That's just the energies that make our world go round. I just think that it was the sun and I have zero clue how it worked. It just was. Because it disproves my... It disproves how I see the world and so it just can't work that way. They were also drifting 15 degrees per hour. But that doesn't prove that the Earth beneath us is moving 15 degrees per hour, does it?

So the tool is meant to feel that motion. The tool is meant to feel that motion. That's what the tool is made for. The tool doesn't feel electromagnetism or I think it's the sun. It feels motion. And so when they turned it on, it felt motion with a 15 degree per hour drift.

That's what was proven. You just said, nope, nope, nope. That's not true because it doesn't fit with your, it doesn't fit your ideology. You just not on it. I asked you what the explanation was and you said, I have no idea. That is textbook definition, not argument right there. Explain the tool and how it works. The, the,

tool that the light the light the and the laser thingy yeah i have no idea how it works yeah i have no idea oh i'm sorry there you go no no no so i know i don't know how the tool itself works like i don't know how a lot of things still do let's move on to your next topic no no no don't run don't run come come come back come back let's move on to your next no no no come back come back you

Come back. Don't try and run away. It might be a good idea to move on soon. Can I get a last... Absolutely. Let's let you put a little bow on this, and then I do want to allow Ross to push it into where he wants to go. So let's hit ADHD. There, I got to say it right. You can say my Ammon is fine. No worries. All right, thanks, Ammon. Yeah, I'll let you put a bow on that one, and we'll hand it back to Ross to go where he'd like to go.

Okay, so Bob set this tool, the ring laser gyroscope, which it's got some

Lots of inner workings that I've looked into. It's complicated. So Bob Nodal says this tool is for measuring motion. It is a really, really sensitive tool for measuring motion. That is how science uses them all of the time. That is what the tool is for. We use it all the time for other things, not just measuring the rotation of the Earth. Now,

He had someone go out and buy this tool. They turned it on and it measured a drift. Okay. It did what the tool was meant to do, which is measure motion. They turned it on, measured a drift. Okay. And he couldn't explain it. And he didn't want that to get out. I mean, it was going to, he knew it was going to. And so he had to have an explanation before it did. But he picked up that drift.

Now, he claimed later on to have retested it and gotten different results, but he never published those results. If what you were saying is correct, it's actually picking up some magical force of the sun somehow, magically, even though that's not what the device is meant to do.

Well, why would he say that his findings were different later on and then not publish them? Okay. He measured the rotation of the Earth. And then he lied about it. I'm sorry. Your sentence interrupted the middle of mine, so I didn't get the beginning. Will you start over? Middle? You've been ranting for the last two minutes, mate. Far out. Get your point across and make it.

I'm just saying that these people who made this movie, they weren't flat earthers. They were very much against this and they wanted to try and discredit this and they did some selective, careful editing to make him look bad. Simple as that.

You know, there's no evidence that the Earth itself was moving just because this thing detects some sort of movement. And as Bob always said all along, it was detecting the heavenly motions, which is what we observe every night. So prove that. Set up a time-lapse camera and detect the heavenly motions every night. We can never detect the earthly motions with any sort of

Before you become the thing you sought to destroy there, Ross, by throwing a lot out there, I do want to say, just before I let you push this into the next topic there that you want to go into, I want to review the poll and just remind people that we've almost gone for about an hour now. So I don't know. Yeah, about 55 minutes I've been streaming here on my end. So...

I'm not sure how much longer you guys want to go with the open discussion, but we're going to keep going for sure and see where the speakers want to go. I'm going to close out this poll, though. So what type of debates do you prefer on Modern Day Debate? We have 52% say science, climate, flat Earth, moon, and AI.

So that is the lead here, which I expected because that's what most of our viewers will be here for. And then 24% just changed just now, say religious, Muslim, atheist versus Christian debates. And then trailing in after that is 14% say political, Trump, Israel, Iran, UN, and then

9% say social debates. So that would be around debates around sex hierarchy and immigration So I'm just going to close that out for y'all and we're gonna put one up Related directly to this subject so you can let us know where you're at in the discussion And I'm gonna hand it back over to you Ross and let you push it back into like I say you wanted to go somewhere new So, let's see if we can do that

Yeah, thanks very much, Ryan. I just thought I'd try and address another one of his points. This is only the fourth one down the list where he talks about the rise and dip. He thinks that being elevated above the flat surface, which is always rising to our level, proves that it's curvature causing that dip, whereas in actual fact, all it is is

I explained it in my opening introduction. It's actually just the fact that there's atmosphere beneath us that what is appearing to rise to our level is still rising to our level. It's just that now we've got a heap of atmosphere beneath us rising up. So of course the hard horizon is going to appear below us. It's not a proof of curvature whatsoever. Why was the sun below eye level?

The sun isn't below eye level. It is in my photo. Would you like me to pull up my photo? We can see through the atmosphere, so it's not blocking it, but we can't see through the ground. So the ground rising up to eye level is going to block it and make it appear to set bottom first. But if we're up really high and the sun is just going really far away, it will still appear to be below eye level, even though it's actually not.

So wait, wait, wait. So things in perspective, things that are above you can cross to be below your eye level. Even when you're looking out directly, when you verify that you were looking horizontally at eye level, things that are above can be below eye level. Can you show them that working in perspective? We're talking about very great distances. Like you're talking about this sun that must be like eight to 10,000 miles away from you.

and you're arriving up to eye level is a couple of degrees beneath you and it's probably 6,000 miles away, then yes, it can appear to be beneath you.

No, that's just incorrect. That is not how perspective works in the slightest. Never, ever, ever will in perspective something cross from above your eye level to below your eye level. That is not how perspective can ever work. That's just not how it works. Fair point, fair point. But do you even know if it's the sun that you're looking at?

Or if you look at an apparition of it, it's in the atmosphere. Ooh, it's a ghost. That's your only response? No, that is my genuine response because the sun is not the sun.

It never is. Sometimes you collect it in the water. Do you assume the sun is now underwater just because you can see it in the water? No, it's an apparition. It's just the way light works. And when you understand how perspective works, when you're seeing things, you don't quite understand. That's not perspective. You just assume, oh, well, that must be the sun. How can the sun be underwater? That's not perspective. That's refraction. That's the sun. No, it's not.

That's not perspective. That is the light bouncing off of different. That is not perspective. No, it's not. You can't just say magical perspective and then it's all right. The sun cannot ever be below your eyeline if it's outside the firmament. You have to show that working. You cannot show it working.

Of course you can't. Show it. How can you show perspective? Show it working. Perspective is what it is, man. Show it, mate. Come on. Logically, how can I show something that you have to see for yourself? How can I do that?

I want you to show me on paper how that perspective works. The light that enters your eyes is not the same light that enters my eyes. The light that enters somebody else's eyes is not the same light that enters mine or your eyes. Everything is perspective. Everybody has their own individual perspective of reality. So you can't explain how the sun got below my head. My version of reality, just so you can understand it, that satisfies your curiosity. You have to understand it for yourself. It's an intellectual understanding of reality.

And if you don't have it, you don't have it. Some people get it. Just saying that I'm stupid doesn't absolve you from having to explain it. Well, okay. So let's, for example, we're watching a sunset across the water and somebody is 100 meters up the beach and another person is 100 meters down the beach and they're seeing a reflection of the sunlight coming to their eyes. But the one I see is coming to my eyes and coming to my feet. I can't see their reflection that they're seeing.

To me, the rest of the water just looks in complete darkness. But from their perspective, that's where the sunlight is.

Call our family.

Call our factory at 1-800-WATER-99 or visit LifeSourceWater.com. Warranty limitations apply. California summer adventures are calling. Get out there and explore behind the wheel of a brand new Toyota Hybrid with 17 fuel-efficient vehicles to choose from, like the all-hybrid Camry, Adventure Ready RAV4 Hybrid, or the roomy Grand Highlander Hybrid. Toyota has the hybrid for you. Every new Toyota comes with ToyotaCare, a two-year complimentary scheduled maintenance plan, an exclusive hybrid battery warranty, and of course, Toyota's legendary quality and reliability.

Visit your local Toyota dealer and test drive one today. Toyota, let's go places. See your local Toyota dealer for hybrid battery warranty details. California summer adventures are calling. Get out there and explore behind the wheel of a brand new Toyota Hybrid with 17 fuel-efficient vehicles to choose from, like the all-hybrid Camry.

Toyota has the hybrid for you. Every new Toyota comes with ToyotaCare, a two-year complimentary scheduled maintenance plan, an exclusive hybrid battery warranty, and of course, Toyota's legendary quality and reliability. Visit your local Toyota dealer and test drive one today. Toyota, let's go places. See your local Toyota dealer for hybrid battery warranty details.

So the whole entire body of water must be reflecting sunlight. That has nothing to do with the sun being below eyeline when I'm in a plane. It's got everything to do with it. No, it's not. If you can't understand how the nature of light works, then you'll never get it. That's not. No, you need to show it working. You can't explain or you can't be shown. You have to understand it intellectually.

How can I understand it intellectually if no one will show me? How can I get it if you are not willing or not even able to show me how it works? I'm asking you, show me how I was able to take a photo of the sun below eye level while I was in a plane. That cannot work on a flat Earth. You have to admit that when we make these observations, they match with the globe Earth.

You can explain them with whatever you want, but you admit if we are just looking at the observations themselves, they all point to a globe Earth. They all do. You just make excuses for it.

it. The point of view of a million different sets of eyes. How can I show you that? How can I show you that? I just want one. My set of eyes. My set of eyes saw the sun below my level. The point of view of the universe of how it exists from your point of view and it's going to seem real to you. So you can't. You cannot do it. Using big words isn't going to do anything towards what we're talking about.

You're just quoting your script and going off of what we're talking about and saying, oh, it's really big and moves really fast. That's not what we're talking about. The sun appears below eye level on a plane.

That's not my script. My script says we are on the physical fixed plane at the base of the universe. That's what you believe. Your script is just what you repeat over and over. That's your brainwashing. It's not mine. It's your brainwashing. No, no.

That's why you say the same thing verbatim every single time is because it's brainwashing. You have been brainwashed by the flat earth. I grew up with the same brainwashing you're still suffering from. And you still believe we're hurt when we're back in space. We're not talking about space. We're talking about the sun is below eye level. You keep running from that. You cannot prove it. You're running away. You're not.

It is. I have a picture of it. I have it. Show how the apparition made. Create a model. How did the apparition get made?

I can create a model. That's not a problem. But, you know, to try and replicate all of reality in a simple model isn't really something that I'm quite capable of doing. I just appreciate it. Are you? Because you're just saying it. As it is. And you've just seen the model as it is. You can't replicate it. You can't do that on a spinning space ball. Wait, I can't replicate... Did you just say I can't replicate the sun being below the horizon on a globe?

Is that what your claim was? Did you say yes or no? Oh, you were talking over me, right? Okay. You said I can't replicate it. You said I can't replicate it. But my claim is that I saw the sun below the horizon. That's easy to replicate on a globe. You just turn away from it. What? I have a freaking picture of it!

I have a picture of it below. I have a photo of it happening. The horizon is what causes day and night, and that would be blocking the sun. So you cannot see the sun beneath the horizon. Sorry, I meant to say eye level, not horizon.

Because I have a photo of it below. There you go. Now you understand the difference between perspective and reality. You don't understand. You can't just say, oh, you misspoke, therefore I win. Show how the sun was below eye level

On a plane. No, no, he said horizon. I said it one time and it was a mess up. The heck? One time. One time and it was a mess up because this photo is of the sun below Ilam. It's impossible on a flat earth.

It's not. It's exactly what we'd expect if you're up really high and the sun is really far away. No, no, no. Perspective doesn't allow it. Nothing above you can be below your eye line in perspective. No, no, no. Stop. Stop.

In your globe, your model, your horizon is only three miles away. It's spinning towards the east. So the sun would have already set well before it got so far away that you could even see it anywhere near beneath the horizon. You would have to go far, really rapidly. It's setting. Is it going below the horizon? Don't run. How can the flat Earth explain the sun below eye level? Logically, just by...

We can do it then. You can't just say, I can't explain it. Do it. You've done it before, mate. I just did. I just explained it. No, you just said, I can explain it logically, and then you didn't explain it. And you can see a lot further when you're really, really high. Okay, but how... Listen to my question, and I want you to answer my question. If there's physical curvature in the way, if there's physical curvature in the way, you have to go forwards and over it to see on the other side of it.

You haven't done that. All you've done is gone backwards and away from the center of your imaginary spinning space ball to think that you can see further. You're going the wrong direction. You're going the wrong direction if you go up. You have to go forwards and over to see over curvature. How did the sun appear below my eye level while I was on a plane? Because you're really high and there are no obstacles in the way. Okay, so you're saying that perspective allows something that is above you

While you were looking horizontally to go below eye level. It can appear that way if there's nothing in the way. Did you take any forensic measurements of how big the sun appeared to be? No, of course not. You just assume it stayed the same size all the time. And yet we've seen from high altitude... Straw man, that's not what I said. That is a straw man argument. That's not what I said. Sun below eye level. Address that. Yeah.

Atmosphere is how you address it? You can see through the atmosphere. You cannot see through the ground, which is ramping up the eye level. How did the sun get below eye level? How does that happen? Because you're really high. So the sun was physically below eye level, right?

According to you. No. Okay. So you're saying that something physically that is above eye level while you are looking straight and level, which I verified on my Theodolite app, can somehow get below eye level. Is that what you're saying? I'd like to see. Can you show that picture again? Yep. Is it actually below eye level? Yep. Okay. Let's see. All right. That's up and running. I can't see the sun.

Okay, can you see... Okay, so can you see the light there that's caused by the sun that is below? Absolutely, because the light is... It comes from the atmosphere, and the atmosphere is the creator of light. Okay, but you're saying that somehow the sun is still above that eye level, even though the light is coming from below it? I can't see the sun. I told you. Okay, are you saying that the sun is somehow above the eye level, even though the sunlight is coming from below it? No, I'm saying the sun is so far distant, it's still...

Flu wrestling the atmosphere, like the neon gas and some of the oxygen layer. It's got that light blue color. The neon is the bright orange one.

That's not neon lighting up. That's absolutely not neon lighting up. That's just a stupid thing to say. No, it's not. No, it's not. That is stupid. Run! Run to neon. It's not neon. So this is showing that the sun is below eye level and you can't explain it.

I can't see the sun. What are you talking about? You're making shit up. No, that is... It's too far away. You just can't see it. Okay, cool. So you can't explain it. Great. Let's move on. Can you show me the sun? I cannot see the sun. Let's move on. You can't explain it.

You can't show me the sun, and yet you're claiming the sun is there. The light is coming from the sun, let's move on, because you can't explain it and you refuse to talk about it, and then you say that you are correct. Alright, you both hit a wall. You guys are both kind of repeating yourselves at this point. Let him talk, dude. Hold on.

let him talk he's the moderator that is true enough uh well i was gonna say before we go into super chats it's a little earlier for super chats just just chill out it's okay uh you know i'm not too fussed one way or another uh but uh if you did want to continue i know like you had uh your paper there ross if you had something else that you wanted to move into that we might be able to get into a bit further uh or maybe you've hit the end of your notes there i don't know you can let me know i have i have one thing

before we go to super chats.

He wants to talk about eratosthenes. There's so many versions of eratosthenes. All right. Then let's let's let's let you push it this time. Hold on one second there, Ross. I'm not going to issue any mutes, but I'm going to let I'm going to let Eamon push this time because I've let you kind of, you know, outline what you've written down there to try to move things forward. But if Eamon's got something, then I want to let him have his time, too. So go ahead when you're ready.

How many time zones are in the northern hemisphere? 19. Okay, cool. So that is incorrect.

So pulling up this time zone map, counting across from... You answered my question beautifully. You lied. Going across from the dateline, one, two, three, four, five, six... Let's be charitable and just say, if it wasn't correct, that maybe doesn't know is a nicer way to say that. Oh, I'm sorry. You didn't lie. You were just wrong. Okay.

um going across the top counting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 time zones across the top and would you like me to share it so you can see them

Yeah, because we know for a fact there's a three-hour jump across the Bering Strait and there's another... All right, there's the time zone map. You think the world is a flat, square river? No, this is a projection of the globe.

This is the time zone map showing 24 slices across the top. I absolutely agree. This isn't my model. This is a time zone map. This isn't. This is what you're using as proof of time zones when it's not even to scale.

It's not to scale. Absolutely. That is what's wrong with this map. But it does. You're just running away from the fact that I am showing 19. There's 24, 24 time zones across the top of the map. And look at the size of Greenland. Absolutely. The size of Greenland is broken because it's a freaking globe. And when you try and stretch a globe out over a

Flat plain, things get messed up. The size of Greenland? Gigantic. You know what? That map behind you? The size of Australia? Freaking ridiculous. It is twice the size of America, yet they are geographically almost the exact same width.

Your map is worse. It shows Australia much, much bigger. It's absolutely ridiculous. Seriously, no wonder you call yourself ADHD if this is what you believe to be a representation of reality. The size of Australia is approximately the same size as the mainland USA, but the mainland USA has four time zones from one end to the other. Go get your map. And Australia has two with a half-hour time zone in the middle. Australia has three. No, it's not.

Yeah, but the half-hour one doesn't really count. This map shows three, so you're incorrect. Go get your map. Yeah, but the half-hour one doesn't count. Go pull your map off the wall. That's the whole problem. Go look at your map. Eh? Go look at your map. I've looked at my map. I know exactly how... Okay, are we getting caught up on the half-hour thing? I don't know. We have this happening in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, you know? They are a half-hour ahead of us. But, like, I don't know. That's the... I don't know how that... I don't know. I want to let Ross explain how that...

How that's not three? It makes perfect sense if you represent it on the azimuthal equidistant map and the way that I can represent time zones. As I said, I've got a video. It's not my own video on my channel. I believe you can find it under Flat Earth Glides as well as Flat Earth Model and possibly somewhere else. I've uploaded it.

where it shows the time zones work perfectly well when you represent the world as it should be shown with the North Pole in the centre and the time zones get bigger and bigger towards the outside centre. The...

equator around the middle shows exactly 24 hour time zones as you'd expect apart from China being geopolitically they've put three time zones into one so you agree geopolitical is an issue yeah okay great absolutely yeah yeah yeah okay there's no doubt about it yeah a lot of a lot of flat earthers think that time zones are just straight from top to bottom um but a lot of them will ignore there's geopolitical stuff

Yeah, absolutely. I can show you. I can show you. Flat earthers do not. Flat earthers are well aware that there's geopolitical considerations everywhere. And you can see, like China, for example, was represented entirely in green. That's because they decided to take one time zone, which actually represents more than three hour difference. So some people are getting up at three in the morning

someone go on the bed at three in the afternoon whatever but that's just the way they've decided to do it because and time is generally a business consideration far more than it is a reality and you have debunked your own claim of 19 time zones because you know that there's geopolitical lines that make things weird now

I'm done with time zones because I've shown that they're... I agree. Greenland is ridiculously big. Australia is ridiculously big. And look at those big blue zones you've portrayed there. They've taken hours away. So did China. You would agree that it was geopolitical with China, but when it's with Greenland, you say, well, that proves that it's flat.

You can't use that argument for one place for China, which has one time zone, and then totally ignore it for Greenland, which has one time zone. It's both ridiculous because of geo... You're the one that said there's 19. There's 24 across the top, 24 across the bottom. But the size of Greenland is absolutely ridiculous. We agree. Because in reality, it's a globe, and that means that the...

The countries on top get stretched out and the countries on bottom get stretched out. The projection of the globe that you have hanging behind you shows that Australia is twice the size of America. You can't call that look Greenland so big when your own map that you claim has Australia twice the size.

Do you want me to pull that one up too? The time zones work. Do you want me to pull up Australia too? The time zones actually work. So the fact that there's a half hour time zone in the center is simply because the sun to go from such a great distance doesn't work for the globe. It works perfectly fine. Look, look, look. So here's Australia twice as big as America. In the north.

You can't say that Greenland is ridiculously big on that map and ignore the fact that the map that you have hanging behind you, Australia is ridiculously tiny? No, no, Greenland is. On your map or mine? Because that's a more realistic representation of the actual size of the continents. Unless you get to the southern hemisphere where Australia is now twice the size that it should be. It is two times as large.

No, it should be. Yeah, it is. I have videos on my channel showing the breakdown of how big America is and the breakdown of how big Australia is. Australia is almost twice the size on your stupid map as it is in reality. Yeah. Okay. So wait, tell me, tell me which is bigger, America or Australia? Yeah.

Which is bigger, America or Australia? America has four full time zones. Australia has two with a half hour time zone. Australia has three. Which one makes more sense? That map makes more sense.

Australia has so wait so the the the much the the America, which is half the size of Australia according to your map has four time zones, your map shows Australia twice the size of America crazily because we know it's not. And it only has, according to you to even though the map shows. Yeah, I agree that you have size issues.

Your map is ridiculous. Look at how big Australia is. It doesn't. Is Australia, yes or no, is Australia twice the size of America? Sorry, the United States of America. It is? Obviously. Obviously. It's probably far bigger than that, than what they even show on these maps, because these maps are designed to show equilateral sort of

What's the word? Symmetrical size of the southern hemisphere to match the northern hemisphere. Where's the southern hemisphere? No, it's not. All right. So America is 2,800. America is 2,800 miles across. Australia is 2,485 miles across. Australia is smaller than America. Sorry. Australia is 4,000 kilometers.

across um and and have you driven it have you driven it yourself and america is 4,313 kilometers across so your map is wildly inaccurate now there is a bike race that goes across australia every year as a i used to be a biker i know i don't look at i used to be a biker um they have little little

odometers that they put on their bikes that they have perfectly tuned to the size of their wheel so every time their wheel goes around one time it counts that distance as traveled now this race goes across the entirety of australia yearly if australia were secretly twice the size of the claimed

4 000 uh exactly 4 000 ish kilometers they would have noticed because i notice if i'm riding an extra mile when i didn't expect to they're going to notice double the distance while biking how many days does this race take several weeks yeah absolutely

and you think that someone's going and messing with their numbers or they're just not noticing that it's twice as far as they thought this is the first i've ever heard about it then you should do your research then you should do your research and come to the debate prepared you should have yeah absolutely you should have you should have known my arguments before beforehand

Shame on you. You should have known. Your argument is so weak. You've got no evidence of a pressurized atmosphere in a vacuum. Run away. You've got no evidence of motion. Run. You ran so fast from that. That proves you're spinning space balls. You ran so fast. We've got the same constellations for thousands of years. We've never seen a state of parallax. You just lost the debate. You ran so fast. You ran so fast.

All right, maybe that could be something of interest. All right, hold on, hold on. Just before we get into that, you mentioned constellations. Let's describe a little bit of that, what that term means to you. Maybe that could be some interest. Before we get into Q&A, I want to remind the audience that we will ask your questions. We'll probably hit it in about 10 minutes at the max. So get your questions in now via the Super Chats.

But yeah, I want to hand it back over to you, Russ, and just describe to our audience maybe what that term means to you on the Flat Earth model, constellations, and hopefully we can get into some back and forth about that.

Absolutely. That's a great question. Thanks, Ryan. I'd love to go into that because the constellations we've seen for thousands of years have remained constant. They all rotate around us. The sun appears to appear in the different house of the zodiac every 12th of the year because it's divided into 12 houses of the zodiac or the zodiac.

they always return exactly back to where they should. Whereas if we were to hurt them through a vacuum of space, every night the stars should appear slightly different relative to one another because each and every single one of them are like thousands of light years apart from one another. So as we're moving around the sun, they should appear to change. I shouldn't be looking at exactly the same direction every night of the year and seeing the sun cross exactly where it appears all the time. I can see...

um Orion's belt every night of the year I've been in plenty of arguments with other globe heads who think that it's impossible to see uh you can see a Ryan's belt in the same part of the sky all year round I won't say the same spot same okay great so that just that that just proves what you said okay cool

You tried to lie and I caught you in the lie. That's okay. In exactly the same direction where we're supposed to be going around the sun throughout the year and looking out at night should be looking completely different direction, but somehow you seem to think all the stars are all so heliocentric that we can see the same ones. So are you saying that you can see every single constellation throughout the entire year?

No, I'm saying I can see the Southern Cross in exactly the same direction every night of the year, even though we're going around the sun. And I can see a Ryan's Belt all throughout the year. In the same place? Yes, I can see. In the same place? In a different spot. In a different spot. Okay. So they do move throughout the year.

They do move. They appear to move, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Okay, great. So you agree that they do move. They're going around Polaris in the center. They're going around Polaris in the center. Which is to be expected. In sidereal time, which is why we see the sun appear in a different constellation every 12th of the year. So they do move throughout the year. Exactly the same. So they do move throughout the year. You keep saying exactly the same. They're not exactly the same. They move throughout the year. No, they're exactly the same.

But you said that you... So can you see Orion in the same spot every single day? No. No. Okay. They're not exactly the same. Cool. Got it. But the constellation itself is exactly the same. Yes, because the constellation is exactly the same even in the northern hemisphere on the inner side of the equator. Yes. Can I explain why? Rotating. Can I explain why?

inside the real time that's they're still exact same constellations they're still still the exact okay so they they they move throughout the sky which is to be expected on the globe now they don't like shift like orion so orion will give them a little space just to be fair uh because you didn't have a lot of time there so go ahead there uh adhd

So Orion's belt doesn't like appear to shift and move as the stars like move around. Right. The reason for that is because they are duper far away. Right. Like so far away. Now, an example of this is if I'm looking up at a mountain and I see two poles, they're right next to each other. And then I take a step to the right. Those two poles look like they have not moved. Right.

They're super far away that just a small amount of movement. And in the astronomical scale, it's a really, really big distance, right? The distance to Orion, the stars of Orion is really, really far away that us moving from one side to the other of our solar system isn't going to change this. What? Sun.

I'm not going to call you dad. Except you agree that the stars are not in the same place every single night. That's why I wanted to press that issue. It's because right now you're going back to say...

The parallax never changes whatsoever. You're right. It's because it is such a small amount that is immeasurable. It is not. The stars are so, the stars are so, so far away that moving from one side to the other is not going to change the parallax of the stars in a measurable way. Now, theoretically, it should like teeny tiny, but it's not going to be enough that we can like measure it.

It's really, really tiny. Now, if you want to talk about drift, did you know that there was a different southern star or a different northern star like 2,000 years ago? It's not the same star as it was. It used to be Thubit. Then why are you saying that the stars have always been the same? You can't prove that.

claims man that you say things that happened thousands of years in the past you said thousands of years and they were the same it's the same claim oh you just climbed it polaris is called polaris because it's the north pole star and it's always been the north pole star and always will be the north pole star except we can track it on the star charts and will be until the end of time

And you cannot make these claims. Oh, well, in 12,000 years in the future, well, we're going to have a different pulse chart. You're just speaking bullshit, man. But you are throwing out all the star charts that all of the ancients used. You're throwing out all of those star charts that you rely on to prove your BS. Every single last one of them.

You are throwing out those same star charts saying stars never move in all of history. Well, I'm saying, well, in history that we have written down, we can see evidence of the stars moving because we can look at the Egyptian star charts and say, oh, look, the stars are in a different position. Thuban used to be there. Now it's Polaris because they're not in the same spot.

That is what the Star Tarts show. You are lying. You are lying when you say, shut up. You are lying when you say that they have never moved. That is a lie. Let's say the evidence of your positive claim. Your positive claim of them never moving.

No, no, mine is saying that they don't. Yeah, that's a positive claim, dude. That's a positive claim. Saying that they do not move is a positive claim. You have to provide evidence of your unicorns. Saying that they do not move is a positive claim. That's right, because they haven't moved.

Saying they do not move is a positive claim. Do you even know what the Big Dipper symbolizes? How it's like the quarter arms of a so-called Swaz sticker emblem that's been known through thousands of different cultures throughout all of history. Every single culture has an emblem of that because that's how it works in the Northern Hemisphere. It hasn't changed. It hasn't changed.

So way to run away from it. Polaris moving. Polaris has moved. We have the star charts. You saying that it hasn't is lying. You are lying and you know it. Proved. Proved.

You haven't proved a single thing this entire time. You can't say prove it because you haven't done that at all. Yes, you do. Yes, you do. You have to prove that the Earth is flat. You have to prove that stars don't move. You have the burden of proof. All right, before we go in... If you don't, you're stupid. Just one second. Before we go back and forth on how the debate should unfold, let's just... If we have any other meat and potatoes to get into...

I'm going to hand it back over to Ross because he said he had a couple things on his list that you guys didn't get to talk about yet. We are at an hour and 30. We have quite a few super chats that are in now. So I'm going to let you try to run through a couple of those, Ross and Ross.

I promise you live audience, we're going to get to those super chats. Uh, we're just letting you guys stew a little bit and, uh, build them up. Uh, you know, so we, uh, we got some, some good questions there for sure. So, uh, over to you, Ross. And, uh, let me get my head screwed back on here. No worries, Ryan. Happy screwing. Um,

i i'd really like to the last point that i really wrote down i do have two more but i think this is the most important one is eratosthenes everybody wants to talk about eratosthenes is that he's proved the spinning space ball now he's set out with preconceived bias that he believes the earth is a sphere and so by measuring angles of the sun he can measure then the size of the circumference of the equator of the earth

Whereas if he had had a preconceived bias in the first place to believe that the Earth is flat and stationary and the Sun goes around the equator, on this particular day, he would have measured the angles of the Sun and realized not only is the Sun maybe 3,980 miles high above us, but the circumference of the Earth is about 25,000 miles, and that gives us

our stationary plane around anyway so if you've got the preconceived bias that think we're on spinning space bomb and the sun is standing still which we know for a fact that heliocentrism now tells us that the sun is actually moving over half a million miles an hour through the galaxy of space if we just assume the sun is standing still we get exactly the same results it's all just a matter of interpretation then of how we're going to interpret the data so

I've heard multiple versions. I've made videos myself about how the Eratosthenes conundrum works and can work on both the flat and stationary Earth and on the spinning space ball model. So I'd like to hear ADHD tell us how it cannot work on the flat Earth. Tell us what debunks it about the flat Earth.

If you actually listened to my presentation, which you've now shown that you did not, I said that we can throw out Eratosthenes' experiment. We could even say he's not even real. It doesn't change the fact that we can do that experiment today. Now, the problem with this experiment is, yes, two observers can be done on a flat Earth.

Three observers cannot. Now, if you have two observers, you can say, okay, well, we'll just move the sun in closer and that proves it. And I absolutely agree with that fact. Two observers.

Now the problem is we've done this with more than two observers. We've done it with three and so on more observers. That is where it starts to get sticky. My diagram showed that the lengths of shadows is a linear progression as you get further away from the sun. It is a linear progressive on a flat earth.

On a globe Earth, they get exponentially bigger as you go away from the sun. Okay, so assuming the flat Earth, two can be okay. One more, we can predict it on both the flat Earth and the globe Earth, but what we...

the prediction of the third point on the globe earth is that that shadow will be longer than what the flat earth says it should be. And so when we go out and check these things, we find that that shadow coincides with a globe earth because as you move farther and farther, the shadows get longer and longer than what we expect on a flat earth. So I agree.

Two observations absolutely can be done on a globe and a flat Earth. Three observations plus cannot, because then you start getting incorrect data for what the shadows should be doing.

And I showed that diagram showing that the shadows should get progressively longer and longer as you get away from the central point on the globe, whereas on a flat Earth they do get longer, but they're not as long every time. It is a linear progression as opposed to, it's almost parabolic on a globe. And that's what we observe. I don't see why any of them...

Shadows should necessarily be any different if the Earth was flat. Yeah, absolutely. It should be a linear progression on a flat Earth. That's exactly what should happen. But on a globe, it's not linear. That's not what we've measured. We've done it, and it shows that if you take the globe into account, or if you do it with three or more observational points...

Those shadows do not grow in a linear fashion. They grow in an exponential fashion in a parabolic way because as you go around the globe, they get longer and longer because you're tilting back. So the shadows get longer and longer. And that is what has been shown is that taking more points than just the two points, then it shows that it is a globe. The exact same thing should happen.

Not on a flat earth. All right. Let's move into that final point there, Ross, and then we'll hit the Q&A. So you had one last one you say you want to hit, and then let's get into those questions. Thank you, everybody, for putting in those questions for our Q&A. We're taking them in the form of Super Chat. So if you have a Super Chat, you want to get it in. We appreciate it. Also, everybody that hit the Like button, we appreciate you. And everybody who hasn't, what are you waiting for? It's a...

Just sitting there. I've hit it with my nose when I have gloves on. It's really easy. So, yeah. All right. Let's hear your last point there, Ross. And we will then get that Q&A. Thank you so much. Well, that was pretty much my last point because everything is open to interpretation. I did write down the 24-hour Sun in Antarctica simply because he brought it up.

I just don't think that that's a very reasonable proof or evidence that we live on a spinning space ball. Because of the magical faceted firmament that you can't prove. Yeah, pretty much. Yeah. That was pretty much my last point that I had written down. I would have rather stick to the Eratosthenes point because, yeah, we can prove for a fact that everything is perspective and shadows will prove that as well.

All right. I think it would be great to move into that Q&A then. So we do have, yeah, quite a few questions here around, what, 10 plus so far? So maybe a little less, actually. So, yeah, I will ask, yeah, if you have a question, get it in. We are heading into that Q&A now. Yeah, we'd love to hear from you, hear your thoughts. You know, if you've got complaints, comments, concerns, anything.

Let us have it. So we appreciate all of you. Once again, smash that like button. We appreciate ADHD Projects, Eamon and Ross for coming out here.

Iron Horse. Yeah, I had to think for a second there. The handle. The handle. Iron Horse. There. Alright, so. Kango44. MDD again hosting the mentally ill. And given chronic spastics like Iron Horse, a voice is irresponsible and morally questionable. He needs help, not a platform. Kango's a long-time supporter of you there, Ross. Do you have anything to say to Kango44?

I love Kengo. He's such a lovely fella. Sending out positive vibes. I think it's funny between the two of us, he calls you the spastic when I'm ADHD projects. And I'm ADHD. All right, so Hillbear has... Most people do like to project quite a lot, don't they? Well, let's ask this question from Hillbear for $2. It says, has Iron Horse seen the space telescope photos?

Space telescope photos. I mean, what are they really doing? They're getting radio images and turning them into a picture. I mean, get real. There's no such thing as an actual photo of Earth from space. Yeah, get real over there, ADHD. And all this stuff they show us about outer space is all just bullshit. You heard him. That's real. That's real. Let's give him a chance to have a quick rebuttal, unless that's it, and then I'll let you close that one out there, Ross, and we'll move on. That's it.

That is it? So you're saying the picture, the image behind him there is real? Ross, your final thoughts? Not this stuff. This stuff is not. But the Earth itself, that's real. It's fake as fuck.

Cool story, bro. You brought no evidence. All right, let's move on to the next one. A $5 Super Chat from Even Lord. Thank you so much for your support. It says, When I look and hear the debaters, Ian Horace has a sage-wise appearance with a long, knowledgeable beard with a calm voice. ADHD sounds girly and soy. Girly. Hey.

I am a tenor and I embrace the tenerness and I am working on the beard. It just gets too long and I don't like it in my, my mouth. There you go. I was going to say as, as a fellow who enjoys singing his fair share of Sabbath and Judas priest. Yeah. I, I, I do my, I do my part for the high male vocal lines. You're, you're a rock fan too, aren't you Ross? What was that Ross?

I was just wondering if he also, you know, as he's transitioning from female to male, does he get the foreman shot? I thought you were just going to partake and say you like rock and roll as well. You behave over there. All right. Even Lord follows up and says, could each debater explain how the Aurora Bialis, uh,

Hold on. He added an edit here. I meant for the debaters describing what Aurora Borealis is. Okay, cool. How Aurora Borealis and how that proves their model. Also, ADHD, it's painfully obvious that you're copying FTFE's persona. Hey, hey, hold on there, even Lord. As somebody who hosts Craig McNeil quite a bit on this show...

ADHD is definitely not doing that. Okay, I'm just going to let you bypass that one. I'm going to let you just skip on that. Let's talk about Aurora Borealis. So can you explain first over there, Ross, what's going on there? For me, yeah, I just believe there's definitely energetic frequencies coming out from the North Pole that get ionized.

by the different energies, but yeah, I don't think that proves that we're on a spinning space wall whatsoever. You're right, that doesn't prove that we're on a spinning space wall. So the aurora borealis comes from when the sun is shooting us with all of the radiation and stuff, the particles are hitting the atmosphere at an angle that they're ionizing and lighting up the atmosphere as it goes by.

It's not magically coming out of a black rock in the middle of the northern hemisphere. Is there any reason why they stop at a certain height above the spinning space ball? They don't. What do you mean stop at a certain height? Do they go into space forever? No, they're in our atmosphere. So they're in our atmosphere. It is the atmosphere. And what contains our atmosphere?

Gravity. You know the answer is gravity. You know my argument. It's gravity. Absolutely. If you wanted to talk about this point, you should have talked about it earlier and not during the super chats. Well, what is gravity? If you want to talk about this point, you should have asked it earlier. Well... What is the firmament? There is no point. What is the firmament? I thought that after my introduction that there's no such thing as this imaginary force of... Then when you said... When we said, hey, bring up another point, Ross, you said, no. No.

So if you want to talk about gravity, either wait for the question or let's move on. Because you can't prove the firmament. Why do I have to prove gravity? I can prove the firmament. No, you can't. Okay. Well, let's let him try. If you don't feel like he can, let's let Ross explain. And then vice versa. We'll go back and forth. I don't think that's problematic at this point in the discussion. I'm having fun. Go ahead there, Ross.

Awesome. So everything finds its place due to density and buoyancy. And because of the density of certain things, the colder they get, the more dense they become. So eventually we're going to get things like helium is going to create a massive superfluid ocean that's going to be held in place by the first hydrogen firmament. And that's our firmament density and buoyancy.

That's what the sun is coming through. And that's why our modern day scientists will tell us that the sun is, what do they call it, fusing hydrogen into helium. It's just the energy coming through the filament creating that illusion. And that's why we see the plasma ball of the sun in our filament. Okay, you didn't proof crap. You just said it. I want proof.

Yeah, you're right. You did not prove it. We agree that you cannot prove the firmament. Well, you can fill a helium balloon up and you know it's going to rise up, right? Absolutely. That doesn't mean that there's a firmament. Yeah, but if we release the helium, it's still going to go up. Okay, that doesn't mean that there's a firmament. Prove the firmament. We also know that everything gets colder and colder as we get higher and higher. That's why we have the

above the helium, the neon layer, because that's where entropy causes all the heat to dissipate. So that's how our version of the world works. It proves the firmament. It disappears into the vacuum of space and then, boom, it's gone. That's where it happened ten times faster than a rag and projectile through it. So you can't prove the firmament. We agree. No, it doesn't. You can't prove the firmament.

Great. Let's go. You can't prove we're hotline through a vacuum of fucking space. Cool.

Let's go. Let us do move on. And thank you once again to all the supporters at modern day debate. Uh, once again, I got to advise, uh, the people that are hanging out in the live chat. If you haven't already to smash that like button, we appreciate it. There are a lot of questions that have been, uh, pouring in as you guys have been unpacking here. So, uh, that's obviously getting everybody's feathers ruffled in the live chat. Uh,

They're feeling very strongly about some of the things they're hearing on screen. So keep those super chats coming in. We're going to keep the conversation going, everybody. We really appreciate the support. LJ coming in with a classic. LJ comment says, why doesn't Earth spin under a hovering helicopter?

lj i've answered this in a debate before here on this channel asking the same question over and over and over doesn't change the answer excuse me i've answered that for you before the helicopter has it is spinning with the atmosphere because the atmosphere is part of the earth and spins with the earth the helicopter doesn't leave the atmosphere

It retains that angular momentum in the atmosphere because everything's moving with it. I've answered this for you before, asking over and over. While it's appreciated to modern day debates because it helps them buy their microphones and cameras that they are wanting, it doesn't change the answer asking it every time we debate it. But that's absolutely nonsense as a response. Cool story, bro.

Because we know for a fact that if an airplane flies through the sky, it flies through the air. If a high-altitude skydiver jumps from the plane, he stops moving with the motion of the plane and he falls straight to the earth. Yeah, yeah. You hit it right on the head. Literally 1,035 miles per hour, one and a third times faster than the speed of sound.

He changes, but the airplane keeps moving at speed. The helicopter can still stay hovering. Yeah, absolutely, because the airplane has a jet. It's perfectly still because the Earth isn't moving. Because the airplane has a jet engine. Just one second there. I'll turn you guys up, but if you could move your mic just a little. The airplane doesn't have a jet engine.

Not necessarily. I don't know if you can hear me there, ADHD, but if you can move your mic a little further away from your mouth, because you're a little louder than Ross right now. Oh, I can adjust that. I was like six inches away. I would say very few car drivers jump from something with a jet engine. They just jump from a normal sort of airplane that just opens up and it's only about 14,500 feet type of thing. The airplane has an engine, correct? One second there, ADHD. Let's let him finish his sentence.

Yeah, sorry, I had to finish, but maybe it's back over. I'm just saying, when the skydiver jumps from his airplane, the airplane keeps on going, the skydiver doesn't, and he just lands on the Earth, which isn't moving, which is supposed to be moving multiple times faster than the plane anyway. So to reiterate, the atmosphere is still moving with the Earth. The Earth and the atmosphere move together. The plane has an engine...

Right? Whether jet engine or little propellers, it's got an engine that moves it through the atmosphere on its own accord. The skydiver, excuse me, it's my turn. The skydiver, the skydiver, excuse me, it's my turn. The skydiver... We'll let him wrap up this thing. Your mic is still quite a bit louder, but continue on. The skydiver...

doesn't have an engine. That's why it doesn't move through the atmosphere. The airplane has an engine. When the helicopter hovers above the ground,

It's not moving forward because you have to actually move it forward in order for it to go forward, right? And so it's hovering with the atmosphere, with the Earth. So it was an absolutely stupid, ridiculous thing to say. Well, when a skydiver jumps out of a plane, the skydiver doesn't keep moving. Yeah, it's because the atmosphere is moving with the Earth and the plane is moving separate from the atmosphere. Exactly.

I've got a question for you, retard. How the fuck does a hot air balloon work then? It doesn't have an engine. And it stays hovering above the stationary plane or earth exactly the same as the helicopter. Yeah, I mean, it's still subject to wind. Wind moves separate from all of that because there's lots of things going on. The helicopter... Do you want me to answer your question?

Don't ask a question if you don't want me to answer it. I am answering the question. If you shut up and let me answer it, I will answer your question. All right. Not that this isn't fun. Not that this isn't fun, but let's let him answer the question. If it's not to your standard, we'll let you respond. Go ahead there, ADHD. Okay.

So your question was, why do hot air balloons move around? So hot air balloons are still subject to wind and things. We're assuming that if their helicopter is sitting there, that the person is going against if there's a crosswind, the person is holding the stick against the crosswind to stay there. If he didn't do that, he would drift with the air, just like the hot air balloon. However, the hot air balloon is much, much lighter than a helicopter.

and so it's going to get moved with the air the same. Even though the atmosphere is still moving with the earth, there is still wind because of high and low pressure areas.

That's the answer. So if there's no wind on that particular day and the thing doesn't move anywhere, any direction, how the fuck is it diverting one and a third times the speed of sound with the spin of the Earth plus the 66,600 mile per hour orbital rate of the Earth through the vacuum of space to create the appearance of a very perfectly still...

So it's great.

Yeah. Yeah. You're going, that's what you do every single time you go into the like 66 million miles or 66,000 miles per hour. It's hurting through the, all right. All right. We're doing, we're, we're, we're, we're doing, we're doing the meta debate just right quick before we do like a debate analysis. I just put you both on mute for a second. Let's ask the next question. Um, there are spaces to do the debate analysis. I'm sure, uh, that, uh, Max will be hosting an after show, um,

I'm pretty sure it's pronounced yerba mate. I never want to just assume, but I see now that he's got like a drink he's passing around. So I'm imagine that's how it's supposed to be said. So yeah, I'm sure that you'll be able to have that analysis there, but I don't want to also get in the weeds. Let's carry on.

LJ says, if you dig straight down, will you come out upside down? So I want to, this is always asked to, you know, the globe side of this argument, but I do want to ask this over to Ross just for interest sake. What happens in this model if you dig straight down? Like what's underneath?

Okay, so the hypothetical idea of gravity is that it's stronger according to the amount of mass beneath you. But actually, as you went down, you're getting less and less mass beneath you, so you'd actually stop having less pull. And yet, if you did have a hypothetical hole all the way through the Earth, you should technically get pulled both ways towards the center of it. But the technical definition of it is that gravity is actually highest at the top,

So technically you would just float in the middle, you know, if such a thing were possible. The whole idea of gravity is completely. If you dug down far enough, you just kind of floated. Okay. I'm just making sure that we're answering the question there. So dig down far enough. You'll eventually just float. According to what globe earthers have told me about how gravity works. Yeah. That's a hundred percent. We'll let you on the other side there. Amen.

oh sorry is there must be a delay um there's that's 100 true when i took my physics course this was actually a something that we modeled out going through gravity what would happen if you went through a hole and jumped through the bottom of or jumped through the middle of the earth you would accelerate down until you hit the midpoint then you'd start going

out and it would feel like gravity changed directions and you would start decelerating until you hit almost out the other side and then you'd accelerate down and you'd keep going back and forth until you were slowed down by the friction of air and you'd just like float there in the center. Yeah, he got it dead on. That's perfect. Good job. You said friction of air. Alright, moment of agreement. The friction is the only force of resistance. Awesome. Awesome.

Awesome. Well, I am sorry if I have a bit of a delay there, gentlemen. I'm going to do my best to not jump in at wrong times if you're hearing me on a slight delay. Hopefully our audience is getting this, you

you know, in good real time. You let us know in the live chat if there's any issues that you're experiencing. But I do think that that's how our Zoom chat's going, unfortunately. So let's carry on with the next question. JSS Tiger says, for $5, thank you so much for your support. JSS Tiger says, gas planet Jupiter is evidence of gas pressure next to a vacuum.

All right, thoughts there Ross? Well that's a big problem. That's a massive problem for the heliocentric point of view of the Earth is you cannot have gas pressure in a vacuum. And they talk about all these planets being gaseous giants. It would have been some of the things, one of the things I would have brought up in my introduction had I had enough time, is to say that a gas in a vacuum

Does not work, no matter how you look at it. Doesn't matter how much mass you give it, because mass and gas are two completely different things. You cannot have gaseous giants in the vacuum of the universe. And that's just yet another one of the proofs of the flat Earth is that we have pressure here on Earth.

from Earth because everything finds place due to relative density and buoyancy not because we're spinning and hurtling through a vacuum of space. So the idea of gas giants is something that's been mentally programmed into you that makes you insane. Thanks. Oh my. That's insane. All right. Go ahead there, ADHD. I think this is just a little inflammatory cherry on top to try to get you riled up but let's see if we can stay on task. Go ahead.

That's okay. His brainwashing has taught him what down is, yet he doesn't have a downward bias, which is required in order for things to fall down. Because when I hold my phone here, the lesser medium is actually above it, and so it should go up according to his thing, but there's no downward bias, so that's okay. His brainwashing took over, so we can just move on. Okay.

No way. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you've got a force of resistance from beneath something when you let go of it? You are the force of resistance. The force of resistance comes from something of density. If you don't have anything of density, you've got no force of resistance. So a thing will drop perpetually until given a force of resistance. But why down? You don't have a downward bias. Because the dense stuff is already down there. There.

Man, it's already down there. That's where it goes. So it goes towards the dense stuff? And you observe. You observe.

You observe what stuff does. How many times can you throw something in the air and 100 times out of 100 it's going to fall down until resisted by something of sufficient density to resist it. The first rule is make the observation. Don't try and assume, oh, why can't nothing make things float in the space?

No, we observe what happens. Things go down until they're met by a force of resistance from the density of the matter of the stuff resisting it. It is so fucking obvious. I can't believe you stupid fucking globetards are still asking the same question all these years down the track when we've proven the force of resistance comes from density of matter, not from fucking...

Nothing. Thank you. Okay. One more time. Why is it downwards and not upwards? One more time. Because it's already down there. And ladies and gentlemen, Iron Horse Ross has just invoked gravity. Let's move on to the next question. Gravity means white. He can't always have the last word there. But

Hold on, Ross. You have gotten the last word on a lot of the questions. I mean, objectively, a lot of them are for you. So, I mean, you know, a lot of the audience has questions regarding that. But don't mind me if you see me laughing. Somebody in the live chat just said some obscenities and I'm a terrible person and I laugh at the worst jokes. So...

Nothing that you guys are saying. Don't worry about me. All right. So Vincent Shatwell. I hope you did this morning. I hope you shat well. All right. Iron Horse. It's amazing how this... He says, Iron Horse. It's amazing how this man denies reality. There are so many videos showing that you're able to zoom into things beyond the curve. It's amazing.

Obviously that's because there's not a curve there. If it was a curve, it would be hidden behind the curve. The fact that you can zoom into it proves there is no curve. You have to go forwards and over a curve to see beyond it, because it's a physical curve. So easy. There's so, so many videos, yet Iron Horse could not provide a single one. I feel bad about having the last word on that, because he walked away.

It's so good. That's all right. You know, every once in a while we need some water. We need a little break. It's totally fine. It's Q&A. We're having fun. Rio in the live chat, you're giving me a hard time there saying that I'm appearing to be biased. I don't know how you might be drawing that conclusion. I'm just trying to have fun and enjoy the debate. You know, ruffle the feathers that I can as well when I can, you know. People.

Just trying to make you happy. All right. We'll ask that next question to you. So if you have any other questions in the audience for ADHD or Iron Horse, you know, comments, complaints, concerns, get them into the Super Chats. I have one here for you, ADHD. So I'm going to ask that while Iron Horse has stepped out. ADHD, the Discover satellite has been sending tens of thousands of pictures from deep space. We'll wait till Iron Horse sits down here.

Gets his headphones in I'm sorry. Can you hear us? I can hear you. No worries. No worries. We totally we totally get it Jim Daniels is asking a question to ADHD So we'll let him run, you know do the the first response and then you'll be able to respond ADHD the discover satellites has been ascending at tens of thousands of pictures from deep space since 2015 of all those thousands and thousands of photographs how many in your opinion are fake and

So the discover satellite is the one that's pointed towards Earth, not taking pictures away. I'm pretty sure that's the one that he's that that's the discover one. I'm not sure the one of space. It depends on what your definition of like.

fake is, because all they are is data. And what they show you is a representation of that data. And they make it look all pretty. And when if you look at the actual data, it's really not as pretty. But they they make it look pretty. So we can see things. Because a lot of what they're looking at is and I'm talking about the James Webb now, because the ones of Earth are just

photographs um but the james webb telescope takes pictures of space and they make it look all pretty because it's just data um and so most of what we're seeing is actually not in the like visible range and so they um interpret that data to be colors um so they look nice for us so in that regard you can say that they're fake because they're not actually what we see um

But it's still data that they're gathering and still really, really important to science. All right. Let's hand it over to Iron Horse to respond to some of those critiques, and we'll let you close it out. Go ahead there, Iron Horse. So they're talking about the pictures from the Discoverer satellite. Sorry, the delay. So, yeah, I think it's an honest – I appreciate to see the honesty that he admits it's all fake. We've known it's all fake all along.

And we know it's all paintings and CGI. And so to admit that, that's pretty big of him. Don't strawman what I said. You said it was all fake. No, I didn't say it was all fake. You admitted it. No, I didn't. Don't strawman me. Do not lie. Stop lying. You said that they're just taking an interpretation of radio data and making it into pretty pictures to make it look like something. So it's not all fake, like you lied. It's not all fake. It's actual data that they are gathering.

So don't lie and say that I said that it was all fake. That's an absolute lie. It's all data that they gather, but they make it look pretty. And put it onto a painting and it wasn't really the music itself, but I just made that interpretation of it and made it look like that. That's not lying. It's just... It's not a human interpretation. Yeah.

It's saying this data is represented this way. Oh, you can't lie about what I said and then say whatever when I try and defend myself. You are a liar and you know it. You're lying about it and it's a false representation of what we could actually see. You said that I said it was 100% fake. That was a lie.

Do not lie. I didn't say 100% fake. I said it's a false representation of what we cannot speak, turning it into something visual to make it appear what it isn't. I know there's a strong delay going on. It's very difficult for you guys to kind of keep on top of what I'm trying to interact here. So thank you to both of our speakers. I'm going to push into the next question because this one was for ADHD. So...

let's ask the next question here. This is from JSS Tiger strikes again for $5. Thank you so much. Once again, everybody for your support says, give me just one dome height measurement, flat earthers, just one. I need the location and the height. So the height of the dome, uh, firmament, I guess, uh, where they're going here. So go ahead there, Ross, when you're ready. Yeah, for sure. I think there's, um,

We've got several interpretations of our firmament. The first one is the gaseous layer which exists at around 12 to maybe 14 miles high and that's where our gaseous atmosphere ends and then at around 60 to 70 miles high is where we have our fixed physical firmament where it's holding in a massive galactic ocean of

helium, superfluid helium, H3, and it's held in place by the hydrogen firmament because it gets colder and colder at the higher up we go. We could also say we've also got a firmament maybe only a mile high where the clouds exist because of that condensation layer, that's where we see the clouds and sometimes we see the sun in those clouds

But it's not the sun there, it's not the sun there, and it's not the sun all the way up there either. It's just our interpretation of what we see. So if you want some figures, I say 12 to 14 miles high and 60 to 70 miles high. That's our family. Over to you, ADHD. Iron Horse has agreed that it is all just fake because it's all just interpretation. So everything is 100% fake.

It's an interpretation. Last thoughts there, I and Horace? Everything is an interpretation. Everything comes into our eyes, and what we see is how we interpret reality.

All right. Let's carry into the next question. We have somebody in our live chat. Local Machine is saying, prove your beard isn't CGI. I let them know that it might be the Billy Gibbons filter. I'm not sure. It is a fantastic beard, as always. And we're getting all kinds of manly facial support here tonight. Thank you, everybody, for your kind words.

It's so good they thought it was CGI. How about that? Earthly Skeptic says, Iron. Globe predicts sunrise and set. Eclipse and star occultations to the minute. Also precise locations. You can see them from. Flat Earth predicts zilch.

Occultation? No, no, they're all based on flat earth observations. And so they've just back engineered everything off the flat earth observations. We fed the astrolabes for thousands of years.

They've all been based on the geocentric earth. All our stars and celestial observations all work from the fixed base looking up at what we see. I don't see how that proves we live on a spinning space ball hurtling around the sun at ridiculous speeds.

Go ahead and respond when you're ready. So I pause because there's a big delay with Ryan. So the thing is with the two of our models. Sorry to cut you off. I know the delay is going to mess us up bad. But yeah, if I ask him a question, just feel free to respond. You know, I might be nodding and it's way late, but just jump right in and I'll just try my best to keep hands off. All right. Go ahead there, ADHD.

So the two of our models, if we threw out all past data and only had the model itself, only one of those models could actually predict future eclipses. And that's the globe Earth's model. Flat Earth's model cannot predict future eclipses without all of the past data that they can use to extrapolate or guess future

The globe earth can, the flat earth cannot. That's why we call it a post-diction because there's not a prediction at all. It's been the same thing we've been post-dicting from the geocentric point of view since the beginning of time. The heliocentric model cannot predict any of this with any accuracy whatsoever.

All right, let's carry on. Seems like we've got a little bit of a pause there. I do want to give it a second, right? Try not to hit my mic.

We got, what, two, three more questions to go, and then we'll be able to let the speakers go unless any of you in the live chat have any other, you know, super chats you want to get in there. Once again, we really appreciate you. We'll read them out live, and hopefully you'll get out of your super chat what you're looking for. If nothing else, you know, the gotcha that you always thought it was going to be.

Even Lorde says, ADHD, I was trolling you a bit earlier. So earlier they had said that you were debating like Craig. I have to say, Craig's got quite a style when it comes to the way that he debates. He's got an energy that's definitely different. Yeah.

You know, we get along. It's okay. I don't think he's going to cry too much about me saying such things. But let's carry on. I was trolling you a bit when he said that. You debated very well, though you let your emotions get to you at a few points. Also, nice beard, man. It looks very clean. Oh, all the facial support. Where's my love for my crummy nonsense? Anyway, go ahead. Um...

do you feel like your emotions got to you at some point in the debate? No. So the thing about online debates is they're not interesting if we're just sitting here talking about

um so it's really fun to get energy it's it's funner for me to get energetic to get energetic about things than to just sit here and say oh yeah um i think that you're you're wrong there when you said this it's much funner to get up and say look you're not showing any evidence you gotta show evidence it's i it's two styles of debates

There we go. These people, they don't want us to have... You say debates aren't about talking backwards and forwards. I thought that was the whole point. A debate is discussion. You can provide all the evidence you want in support. You can't. Either before or after a debate, but basically during a debate, it is about talking backwards and forwards and making points that you can back up with evidence. To me, that's the debate.

to you a debate is also just i think we both got go ahead all right i think let's carry on uh yeah there's like i say only a few more super chats to go um

but, uh, yeah, definitely. It's been a very lively, uh, debate. We do appreciate it. Like I say, uh, we don't want anybody to be, uh, having flaccid debates on the internet. You know, we want them to be, you know, uh, if people were sitting here, not, yeah, I know what, what a term, right? But if people are sitting here and they weren't absolutely excited, uh, about what they were talking about, it would be rather boring. Wouldn't it? Uh,

You'd probably wonder, why is this person even debating this thing? They don't even seem interested. So, you know, the fact that people are passionate about the topics they're talking about is all that for the better, I think. So...

You know, let some emotions show. Let people know you care. It's totally cool as far as I'm concerned. So Jim Daniels says, ADHD, you are thinking of the James Webb Telescope. The Discover Weather Satellite takes pictures strictly of the Earth. Mm-hmm.

Discover weather satellite. Go ahead. Yeah, so that was my confusion about the question was that you asked about Discover and then you asked about space pictures because the Discover is pointed directly at the Earth at all times but you were asking about space pictures so I wasn't sure if you got the wrong satellite because I thought you were asking about the space pictures. No, the Discover pictures are all 100% real. Absolutely. Absolutely.

So do we see anything else in there? If it's facing towards the earth, as you said, I really don't know that much about it. If it's always...

Pointing towards the Earth, wouldn't we see constant phases of the Earth as the Earth itself is rotating through those phases? So the claim is with the discover is that it's in what's called a Lagrange point. I think it's like Lagrange point one. And that point is in between the sun and the Earth.

And it just kind of sits there as we go around. And the, the, the grunge point is through some weird ways that like gravity interacts with itself. It's a, it's a spot where there's like a well of stuff that can hold of gravity that like holds it there. Um,

I've looked at the physics, it's really weird. But it's a point that the claim is that it is in between the sun and the earth. And so any picture that it's taking of the earth is always in direct daylight. So the earth will turn, but we're staying in daylight. So it will always show an illuminated earth. So that's what the claim of the Discover satellite is. That might be.

no fucking sense whatsoever it's in between the sun and the earth so the entire earth would be entirely in sunlight if it's in between the sun and the earth which it is in in those pictures for the discover satellite that they're always completely lit up sorry right and so this satellite is just no no i was saying let's let's keep rolling with the question right oh okay speed of the um

sun which is like 514 000 miles per hour as the earth itself is going 66 600 miles per hour around the sun it's just staying perfectly low range point so yeah yeah that's that's the claim is that there's though the way that like gravity interacts it like holds it there um

It's complicated physics. And the only reason that I would bring it up is if you already like were on board with the gravity thing. Cause like, yeah, absolutely. That sounds absolutely ridiculous. Well,

when you don't believe in gravity but when you have the foundation the scaffolding of gravity it does looking at the physics aspect of how gravity does work it does make sense but i get to you that absolutely sounds ridiculous but to me i think that they're all real because it's just the same thing that you say also keeps the moon

tidally locked towards the earth that same side always faces the earth as well is that no no so no they they operation bladder be right back

The reason the moon is where it's at is not for Lagrange reasons. When the big asteroid hit the earth and created the moon, it was all molten. And so as it hardened, the dense stuff gathered on one side. And so now all the dense stuff is on one side. So it's locked in that area. Mm-hmm.

I agree. You're absolutely okay to double over in laughter because it sounds ridiculous, but that's what they claim. I'm sorry. I'm good. You can act like that. That's fine. We all know that you're a child.

Sorry? An asteroid hit the Earth and created the moon? Yeah, that's the current scientific hypothesis for the creation of the moon. I thought you grew up with this. You claimed to grow up with this, but you don't know the fundamentals of how it came to be, yet you claimed to grow up with it. So it seems a little bit like you're pretending now.

So you believe the stuff that you were told because you grew up with it. You're indoctrinated with it in compulsory government indoctrination institutions that we all like to go to as children. And therefore, it's true. I mean, you believe in the flat earth psyop, so that's your prerogative. That works for me. Yeah. We agree that you believe in a psyop that created to keep you in control. No, we're...

We're just going down the rabbit hole now. I'm sorry to jump in, but it does sound like we're going to move too far from there, from the debate analytics. So JSS Tiger with the final Super Chat, and then I can let you out of the laggy hellhole I've put you in. I'm so sorry, fellas. I know this has been a little difficult.

So JSS Tiger says, if the gaseous layer of the atmosphere ends at 16 miles and the dome is at 60 to 70 miles, does that mean there is a vacuum above the atmosphere? Not necessarily, because the gradient of density of various things just creates those layers. And so once we've got that layer of hydrogen, which would obviously be frozen at about 60 to 70 miles high,

um who knows what's the Bible you know like it would just be beyond our knowledge to even know yeah that's where we can only know what knowledge is that's right exactly because what we know is what we can observe and what we can observe and what we know and the more we know the more we know we don't know you didn't observe the firmament I observed uh how they did those uh

what do they call it? Nucleic experiments. Like operations. You observe that? Trying to... You're older than you look. I've got a picture of it somewhere. Probably don't have it handy. Are you talking about being there from the dawn of creation? What are you saying? That's not polite. No, I didn't say I was here from the dawn of creation.

The man existed since 1971, bro. No, that's what Eamon was. Oh, no, you look great. I think everybody here, once again, we've all got the magnificent beard comments, except for me. I feel left out here. It'd probably be a great place to wrap it up just because, like I say, the lag is giving us so much trouble, and we are out of the super chats, so...

What I will do is in proper EU style as I usually do I'm going to give ADHD the first closing statement so up to one minute and then you will have the closing one minute there Ross so woman on the floor there ADHD when you are ready when the lag stops so right out of the gate Ross's here

insulting and throwing all of these insults everywhere and then he says things that he doesn't believe and then not zero points at the debate did he provide any amount of evidence. He even lied about what my claims were several times that I called him out on. That's all that he has is insults and lies. He doesn't have any proof of anything that he says. I asked for proof of affirmament and he says it's logical.

I asked for proof that the sun can go below your eyeline in perspective. And he says it's logical. He has zero proofs. All he has is insults and butthurts. All right. Let everybody know where they can find you there. And we'll hand it on over. I can be found here on YouTube with ADHD projects. And then TikTok is my bigger platform. Also at ADHD projects. So ADHD projects on all platforms.

All right. Thank you so much. And we're going to hand it over to Ross Ironhorse. Thank you so much. These live chatters, they're really, they're wild. I love this. All right. Go ahead there, Ross, when you're ready. One minute on the floor. Let everybody know where you're at and your thoughts on our discussion. No worries, Ryan. Thanks. It is kind of astounding that ADHD sort of,

defends all of his arguments on the fact that they're not logical. Whereas, yeah, I just use logic. Yeah, you can find me on ironhorse at youtube.com. I'm Ross Thatcher on Facebook. I'm Ross Iron Horse Thatcher on Quora. You can find me. I'm happy to argue anybody, any time, any day. Sometimes I've got internet reception.

I'm just lucky I've got a fine day here today. I don't think ADHD presented a single piece of evidence that support his global spinning baseball hurtling through a vacuum of space. I've used logic and logical deduction all the way to prove that the realm we live upon, the physical plane fixed at the base of the universe is the only logical conclusion a sensible person could come to. And I appreciate the fact that you

platform to present our cases. Thanks very much, Ryan. And James, Modern Day Debates. Awesome. Yes. Yeah, that's right. Don't come at me about all this. James books this. All right. No, I'm just joking. All right. This is a lot of fun. You know what to do, everybody. Smash the like button. Subscribe to the channel if you aren't already. We are still fast and growing all the time here at Modern Day Debate.

finding all kinds of, you know, new people. And hopefully, you know, we put up the poll there earlier. We'll have all kinds of new topics going forward as well. There's live events and new formats that are going to be explored going forward.

When James gets back from traveling. So keep a good eye out for that. We do appreciate the hardcore supporters at Modern Day Debate. Thanks once again to ADHD Projects and Ross from Iron Horse. So check them out in their respective spaces. Our beloved mod MXXD is going to be doing an after show on Yerba Mate. So spelled mate.

So Y-E-R-B-A, I think it is R-R-B-E-M-A-T-E. If you want to check it out, put it in the live chat there. Yeah, you see that MXXT. I didn't see it. So forgive me if I've once again messed this up, but Max has shared it. So let's let the speakers go. And maybe you'll see them over there as well if they feel like, you know, chewing on a bit more. Thanks, everyone. Cheers.

And of course, Toyota's legendary quality and reliability.

Visit your local Toyota dealer and test drive one today. Toyota, let's go places. See your local Toyota dealer for hybrid battery warranty details. California summer adventures are calling. Get out there and explore behind the wheel of a brand new Toyota Hybrid with 17 fuel-efficient vehicles to choose from, like the all-hybrid Camry.

Toyota has the hybrid for you. Every new Toyota comes with ToyotaCare, a two-year complimentary scheduled maintenance plan, an exclusive hybrid battery warranty, and of course, Toyota's legendary quality and reliability. Visit your local Toyota dealer and test drive one today. Toyota, let's go places. See your local Toyota dealer for hybrid battery warranty details.