Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| the corrupt u.s government is bankrupting the economy and igniting a third world war while flooding the border with single military aged men The media continues to divide us along party lines with another rigged election, while Hollywood tries to goad the people into a second civil war. | ||
| And while this is all happening, humanity is being slow-killed with technologies that only serve to isolate and track us. | ||
| Nine years ago, hundreds of scientists were warning us of the dangers of cell phones and 5G radiation. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I'm Dr. Martin Blank from the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Columbia University. | |
| We are scientists and engineers, and I am here to tell you we have created something that is harming us, and it is getting out of control. | ||
| The incidence of fatal brain cancer in younger people has more than tripled. | ||
| We are putting cellular antennas on residential buildings and on top of hospitals where people are trying to get well. | ||
| It's particularly frightening that radiation from our telecommunication and powerline technology is damaging the DNA in our cells. | ||
| The time to deal with the harmful biological and health effects is long overdue. | ||
| We are really all part of a large biological experiment without our informed consent. | ||
| And things have only gotten worse. | ||
| Millions have been murdered with a mandated mystery injection, which has debilitated even more and infected the living with nanotechnologies that are linking us with machines. | ||
| An artificial intelligence grid is being built around us, and the people have never been more divided. | ||
| And if we fail to unite, the future of humanity is destined to be grim. | ||
| In Ronald Reagan's famous 1987 speech he referred to an alien threat that could unite humanity. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world. | |
| And yet, I ask you, is not an alien force already among us? | ||
| And regardless of what he was referring to 37 years ago, that alien threat is here today. | ||
| It is the anti-human artificial intelligence that humanity is giving birth to. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sentient artificial intelligence is far beyond human beings. | |
| You give it a thousand years alone? | ||
| Where does that go? | ||
| That goes to a god. | ||
| It literally can create universes. | ||
| What kind of god? | ||
| So, like, I think of it this way. | ||
| So the first stage of the Industrial Revolution consisted of people building machines that were stronger than the human body. | ||
| Right. | ||
| Right? | ||
| So the steam-powered loom. | ||
| Sure. The backhoe. | ||
| Combustion engine. Combustion engine. | ||
| They replace muscles. | ||
| Right. Right. So that's what the machine does. | ||
| It becomes stronger than the human body. | ||
| The second stage, which we're in the middle of, consists of creating machines that are more powerful than the human mind. | ||
| That's what computing is. | ||
| And I would say AI or supercomputing is just that exponentially. | ||
| Yeah. I think? | ||
| And their creative power may lead to unintended consequences, but the machines that they build did not make the universe and did not make people. | ||
| People made the machines. | ||
| Right. | ||
| So if – and I – but I would say the part I agree with is there's a spiritual component here for sure. | ||
| People will worship AI as a god. | ||
| AI, Ted Kaczynski was likely right, will get away from us. | ||
| We will be controlled by the thing that we made. | ||
| All those are bad. | ||
| Like, that's just bad. | ||
| And we need to say unequivocally, it's bad. | ||
| It's bad to be controlled by machines. | ||
| Right. Machines are helpmates. | ||
| Like, we created them to help us to make our lives better, not to take orders from them. | ||
| Right. So I don't know why we're not having any of these conversations right now. | ||
| We're just acting as if this is like some kind of virus like COVID that spreads across the world inexorably. | ||
| There's nothing we can do about it. | ||
| Just wait to get it. It's like, no. | ||
| If we agree that the outcome is bad, and specifically it's bad for people... | ||
| We should care what's good for people. | ||
| That's all we should care about. Is it good for people or not? | ||
| If it's bad for people, then we should strangle it in its crib right now. | ||
| And why don't we just blow up the data centers? | ||
| Why is that hard? | ||
| If it's actually going to become what you just described, which is a threat to people, humanity... | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's Tuesday, April 23rd in the year of our Lord, 2024. | |
| And you're listening to The American Journal with your host, Harrison Smith. | ||
| Watch it live right now at band.video. | ||
| Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. | ||
| Welcome to The American Journal. | ||
| I'm your host, Harrison Smith, coming to you live on this Tuesday morning from the Austin, Texas headquarters of InfoWars. | ||
| InfoWars.com, band.video. | ||
| Today's the day, folks. | ||
| In T-minus, what, 54 minutes, we will begin the Great Flat Earth Debate. | ||
| Austin Whitsitt versus myself debating, is the earth round? | ||
| Is it flat? Does it matter? | ||
| So stay tuned for that. | ||
| But of course, business as usual. | ||
| Until then, we'll go through some of the big stories for today, and there are some doozies. | ||
| So let's get right into it. | ||
| it. | ||
| Here it is, your daily dispatch. | ||
| All right, here it is, folks, your daily dispatch for Tuesday, the 23rd of April, 2024. | ||
| While Congress abandons border, $3.5 billion slipped into Israel bill for, quote, migrants and refugees. | ||
| While Congress failed to pass a border security bill over the weekend amid a flurry of billions in international aid to Ukraine and Israel, they did set aside $3.5 billion for, quote, migration and refugee assistance for the State Department to, quote, address humanitarian needs of vulnerable populations and And communities. | ||
| While written in an absurdly broad brushstroke that's going to be open to interpretation, ex-user Oiled Field Rando suggests the funds will be used to pay the NGOs coordinating the illegal invasion out of our southern border and providing all the freebies once they're in. | ||
| Isn't that nice? We beg and plead for just some semblance of border security, and instead that is the only part that's removed from the bill. | ||
| They send money to Israel and Ukraine, but secretly inserted into those provisions is billions of taxpayer dollars to continue to not just allow the migrant invasion, but to fund and facilitate it. | ||
| Because our government hates us and is actively working against us in every possible regard. | ||
| By the way, it's $3.5 billion in the Israel bill and an extra half a billion in the Ukraine portion of the bill, bringing the total to $4 billion. | ||
| $4 billion. | ||
| That's with a B, the billion, the giant number. | ||
| It's that one. Completely insane. | ||
| Meanwhile, Elise Stefanik, all New York House GOP lawmakers, demand Columbia President Shafik resign immediately. | ||
| Why? Because students are protesting the Israeli genocide against Gaza on their protests, so clearly she must be removed or he must be removed. | ||
| It must be removed, the president of this university. | ||
| And this is just one in a number of stories that we'll get to today about the overblown and hysterical reaction to protests existing on college campuses. | ||
| And again, we've been over this over and over again. | ||
| It's just very different than the reaction to the previous protests on campus that were, in those cases, explicitly and specifically designed to Oppose a racial group, white people. | ||
| In this case, it's protesting a foreign nation that just happens to share an ethnicity or a religion with students. | ||
| Not really as bad, but certainly getting a lot more attention and a lot more strident moves from Congress to shut this down completely. | ||
| Again, we'll get into that later. | ||
| But speaking of Israel, Israel airstrikes pound northern Gaza on 200th day of war. | ||
| 200 days of murder, mayhem, and chaos, courtesy of our ally in the Middle East. | ||
| Israel has claimed that evidence of mass graves found at Gaza Hospital were previously buried bodies they had disinterred in their search for hostages. | ||
| That's just 14 minutes ago, so... | ||
| Basically, they have continued their attack on Rafah overnight. | ||
| They've bombed northern Gaza on this 200th day of war. | ||
| And it continues unabated, undeterred, unrestricted. | ||
| And horrifying. But don't protest it, or Josh Hawley might send the police to gun you down. | ||
| Yeah, we'll get into that. We will. | ||
| Meanwhile, unredacted motion reveals collaboration between Biden White House and NRS. N-A-R-A to concoct classified docs case against Trump. | ||
| On Monday, a version of Donald Trump's motion to compel discovery in the Mar-a-Lago documents case was released by Judge Eileen Cannon, with much of the information originally redacted by Biden's special counsel Jack Smith being unredacted. | ||
| In one section titled Early Indications of NARA Bias, which was heavily redacted in its original January 16th version, now states that NARA General Counsel Gary Stern sent an internal email attaching a draft letter to President Trump's representatives. | ||
| Stern noted that he had several conversations with the White House Office of Records Management redacted, and that redacted had raised some of these concerns directly with David Ferraro, NARA's archivist. | ||
| The majority of this section, including an exhibit note explaining that the NARA employee explained to the FBI that it's, quote, not uncommon that PRA material collection extends past the close of any presidential administration, sometimes well after the close of any given presidential administration. | ||
| These things were redacted in the original version. | ||
| So – Long story short, this prosecution is being quarterbacked by the Biden administration, who are doing so despite obvious inconsistencies with the way these laws have been implemented in the past. | ||
| Finally, yes, finally we have this. | ||
| Germany passes gender self-identification law allowing infants to transition to And they impose massive fines for, quote, deadnaming. | ||
| The German parliament, or Bundestag, passed one of the world's most far-reaching sex self-determination policies on April 12th. | ||
| Despite protests from women's rights campaigners, the Self-Determination Act, SBGG, establishes, quote, gender identity as a protected characteristic and allows parents to change the sex marker on their children's documents from birth. | ||
| Supported by Chancellor Olaf Scholz' three-party coalition and promoted and supported by the Socialist Democratic Party, the SBGG also creates the potential for citizens to be fined up to $10,000, or €10,000 rather, a little over $10,000, for revealing a person's given name and birth sex without their permission, an action that trans activists staunchly oppose and refer to as, quote, dead naming. | ||
| Infants changing their gender. | ||
| That's not the only trend story we'll have today, and we'll get to some others here momentarily, but that's your Daily Dispatch brought to you by Brain Force Ultra. | ||
| Brain Force Ultra is the liquid tincture version of Brain Force Plus, one of my favorite and most often consumed supplements from InfoWarsStore.com. | ||
| It's Brain Force Ultra. | ||
| Apparently, we just got a big shipment of this in, so if you want to stock up, now is the time. | ||
| Brain Force Ultra is the official sponsor of today's Flat Earth Debate, as well as the Daily Dispatch. | ||
| So we've got some other pretty big news to get into. | ||
| It's kind of funny, this just struck me because I've been reading up again on ancient Egypt, but it's pretty much a... | ||
| A very common practice throughout mythology and every culture across the world, which makes me think there's a little something to it. | ||
| It's the idea that knowing somebody's real name allows you to curse them, allows you to do witchcraft to them, that there's some sort of magical power in somebody's real name. | ||
| In Egypt, you had something called like the mother's name or something where the mom would name you and that would be your real name, but she wouldn't tell anybody except for you what that was. | ||
| And then you'd have another name that everybody knew you by, but it was a cover because they didn't want you to be able, you know, if somebody knew your real name, they could curse you. | ||
| So they had to keep their real name secret. | ||
| There's just something vaguely occultish and like seemingly magical about this idea of transgenderism. | ||
| And if you say their real name, you must be punished. | ||
| If you expose their real identity. | ||
| And, you know, if you just think about that concept, it's weirdly popular. | ||
| Obviously, like Rumpelstiltskin. | ||
| Knowing his name gives you power over him. | ||
| If you've ever read Lloyd Alexander, the Book of Three, it's another one where the secret to destroying the bad guy is knowing his name. | ||
| Even like Star Wars, finding out who Darth Vader really is, finding out his real name is the moment where You know, everything changes for him. | ||
| There's something weirdly powerful about the naming of things. | ||
| And I just find that interesting. | ||
| That with transgenderism, it's like we will fine you $10,000 for revealing their power name. | ||
| The name that has power over them. | ||
| Very strange stuff. | ||
| Now, let's get into a worldwide phenomenon. | ||
| Censorship. Censorship, surveillance, these things sort of go hand in hand and whether implemented by governments or corporations or governments through corporations, it's happening on a global, in a global way. | ||
| And you know, I... Sort of didn't expect this headline to make it through the printer. | ||
| You know, sometimes you find a headline online, you go to print out the story, and they somehow change the headline between the time you saw it and the time you go to print it. | ||
| But apparently, and this is one of those headlines that you expect them to change at some point, but they've kept it. | ||
| From New York Times, government surveillance keeps us safe. | ||
| Just that's it. That's the headline. | ||
| Government surveillance keeps us safe. | ||
| Wow. Wow. Yeah, I mean you've convinced me. | ||
| Who needs privacy or independence? | ||
| They say this is an extraordinarily dangerous time for the United States and our allies. | ||
| Israel's unpreparedness on October 7th shows that even powerful nations can be surprised in catastrophic ways. | ||
| Fortunately, Congress, in a rare bipartisan act, voted early Saturday to reauthorize a key intelligence power that provides critical information on hostile states and threats, ranging from terrorism to fentanyl trafficking. | ||
| So they're really not hiding it anymore. | ||
| They're really just like, thank goodness, thank God the Congress gave more power to surveil the American people. | ||
| Of course, the absurdity of this is, I mean, infinite, right? | ||
| To invoke Israel on October 7th, as your example, is sort of counterproductive, isn't it? | ||
| Israel and Gaza, sort of as much surveillance as you could possibly have. | ||
| What October 7th proves is that there is no level of surveillance that's enough to stop a surprise attack. | ||
| That's what it reveals. It's not like if Israel just had a little bit more surveillance, they would have been able to counter it and stop the attack from happening. | ||
| First of all, they knew the attack was happening. | ||
| They let it happen. It was not a false flag per se, but a... | ||
| Well, it was something they wanted to happen. | ||
| They needed the excuse to go in and turn Gaza into a water park, so that's what they allowed to happen. | ||
| So kind of ridiculous in that regard, you know, off the top. | ||
| But if this was a legitimate failure of intelligence, it wasn't because of lack of surveillance, okay? | ||
| So what October 7th proves is that you can surveil all you want. | ||
| You still can't make yourself 100% safe. | ||
| So now the question is, what's the balance? | ||
| How much surveillance is necessary to mitigate the most obvious attacks versus what is the value of and how much do we actually value the privacy and just... | ||
| Ability for citizens to have things that the government doesn't know. | ||
| Like, is that not something that we value? | ||
| You know, if not as much as safety, it's at least up there, isn't it? | ||
| I would say. So they're very happy at the New York Times that the government will now be able to warrantlessly spy on your electronic communications, despite the fact that, in the case of Israel, that did nothing to stop the brutal attack. | ||
| And in addition, I don't know if they know this, but we have a completely wide-open border with tens of thousands of foreign operatives making their way across per month. | ||
| So maybe that would be a better thing to do. | ||
| Maybe instead of spying on Americans and opening up a huge swath of communications that you have to... | ||
| Go through and determine whether or not it's valid. | ||
| It's really not even an effective way to prevent attacks. | ||
| Surveillance, especially with the way language is utilized at this point. | ||
| It's like there's constantly playing a catch-up game to the various slang and... | ||
| Shortcuts that people on the internet tend to use. | ||
| Surveillance is just not the answer here. | ||
| The answer is just actual security. | ||
| It's just actually securing the border. | ||
| It's getting rid of all the people that are here that we don't know who they are or where they came from or what they're doing here. | ||
| You're letting in tens of thousands of them and then telling us, gosh, the world is so dangerous. | ||
| You better let us surveil you. | ||
| I mean, it's like they can't help but reveal their own inconsistencies, their own cognitive dissonance. | ||
| God, such a dangerous world out there with the war in Israel and the war in Ukraine and open borders and tens of thousands of people coming across. | ||
| Thank God the FBI can spy on white people now. | ||
| What the hell are you talking about? | ||
| All of these things that are creating this super dangerous world are things that you people are involved in, that you people have done, have created, have instigated, are facilitating at this very moment. | ||
| So shut up. | ||
| Just shut up. You don't care about security. | ||
| You use the threat of attacks as an excuse to get more power, more surveillance, to crush the civil rights and civil liberties of the citizens. | ||
| And everybody can see that. | ||
| So it's... Both pathetic and evil, in a weird sort of dichotomy. | ||
| But isn't that nice? Isn't it nice that they're just coming out and saying it? | ||
| Government surveillance is for your safety. | ||
| It's for your safety, you guys. | ||
| War is peace, and surveillance is safety. | ||
| The Australian police are, and this is where this comes into a... | ||
| Worldwide phenomenon, obviously, when Elon Musk took over X and freed it up for people that had previously been kicked off, he came under attack from a variety of different governmental agencies for a variety of different equally baseless governments. | ||
| I mean, they don't say, yeah, we're coming after you because you allow free speech. | ||
| What they say is we're coming after you because, I don't know, you're in Delaware and we can, basically. | ||
| Or because something about the FCC as an... | ||
| It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. | ||
| The point is they don't want to allow people to speak freely, so they'll come up with an excuse to go after him. | ||
| But simultaneous to that, not only was... | ||
| The American government firing on all cylinders to destroy Elon Musk. | ||
| Brazil also, which had recently been overthrown in a soft coup by the State Department last year, 2022 actually. | ||
| They also, of course, went after Elon Musk in an attempt to destroy the platform for allowing people to speak freely on it. | ||
| And Australia is now getting in the fight. | ||
| Australian PM calls Elon Musk an arrogant billionaire in a row over attack footage. | ||
| Australia's leader has called Elon Musk an arrogant billionaire in an escalating feud over... | ||
| I mean... | ||
| I don't know. If you're a billionaire, especially a self-made billionaire, I think you get to be arrogant. | ||
| I don't think it's arrogance at that point. | ||
| I think it's just honesty, right? | ||
| But what do I know? | ||
| All I know is I think if you've earned billions... | ||
| I think if you're the richest man in the history of the world... | ||
| Yeah, he should probably be a little arrogant. | ||
| It's probably okay to be a bit arrogant. | ||
| The fact that he's not more arrogant is kind of astonishing. | ||
| The fact that he is so not arrogant that he doesn't force his ideas on everybody else. | ||
| You know, you want to talk about arrogance? | ||
| Let's talk about somebody like Bill Gates or George Soros who think that because they're billionaires, they get to impose their beliefs on absolutely everybody and that standing up against them is some sort of heresy because they're gods after all. | ||
| Does Elon Musk do that type of thing? | ||
| No, he's just kind of a goofball. | ||
| Well, destroy him then, I guess. | ||
| So on Monday, an Australian court ordered Mr. | ||
| Musk's social media firm X to hide videos of last week's attack in Sydney. | ||
| Prime Minister Anthony Albany's criticism followed Mr. | ||
| Musk using a meme to accuse his government of censorship. | ||
| So basically, the attack against the bishop... | ||
| Mar Mari Emanuel has been causing a lot of problems in Australia for a couple of reasons. | ||
| One, it shows that, you know, Christians are under attack and obviously they want to portray Christians as the bad guys as they are some of the people leading the attacks against Christians. | ||
| Metaphysical ones, not the physical ones. | ||
| So obviously, you know, they just don't want that footage up regardless. | ||
| But also because it turns out that the Assyrian Christians that are in Australia are sort of your old school type of Christians. | ||
| And when their bishop gets stabbed in the middle of a church service, they go kind of insane. | ||
| And now there's like the Muslim leaders in Australia are like begging their congregation like, just don't confront the Christians. | ||
| If you see... | ||
| A cross hanging from somebody's rearview mirror. | ||
| Just walk away. | ||
| Just get away from them. They're kind of freaking out because they know that the Christians in this particular area, in this particular congregation in Australia, they're like Assyrian, Lebanese, old school Middle Eastern Christians that will... | ||
| Not always turn the other cheek, let's just say. | ||
| They're not your typical Protestants who will, you know, when they get stabbed by a Muslim, they'll go, you know, bow at a mosque to prove how tolerant they are. | ||
| No, these are Assyrian Christians. | ||
| The Christians that really put the fear to the globalist demons. | ||
| Well, let's go to some videos about this. | ||
| Clip number two here. Is a statement from the Australian police about where you should be getting your information. | ||
| Spoiler alert, it's from them and them alone and everybody else is lying. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Let's watch. I also want to stress that there is misinformation being communicated across social media. | |
| And people should not share any of that information. | ||
| The source of information should be from police and law enforcement authorities. | ||
| And if people have concerns, they should check our websites, our socials, And any other direct news from law enforcement about current information. | ||
| If we have current credible information about any risk or threat to the community, we will let them know. | ||
| We will share that with the community. | ||
| So please be assured that police will be the source of truth and not social media and misinformation. | ||
| How do we define misinformation? | ||
| Well, if we didn't say it, it must be misinformation. | ||
| It can be true, but that's not what misinformation means. | ||
| It means that we didn't say it. | ||
| Police are the only ones you should be getting your information from. | ||
| Stay in your bubble. No speaking out of ten. | ||
| What has happened to poor old Australia? | ||
| That's not the only video like this that's come out recently. | ||
| This was posted by Elijah Schaefer, who lives in Australia now, saying they can't control rising crime in Australia, so now they're trying to control videos of the crime. | ||
| Let's go now to clip number six. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It just beggars belief, really, doesn't it? | |
| That this guy, this egotistical billionaire, thinks that it's more important for him to be able to show whatever he wants on X or Twitter or whatever you want to call it today. | ||
| It's more important for him to have his way than to respect The victims of the crimes that are being shown on social media and to protect our Australian community from the harmful impact of showing this terrible stuff on social media. | ||
| We are acting in Australia. | ||
| We have quadrupled the budget for the East Safety Commissioner. | ||
| We tried to introduce a misinformation and disinformation bill last year. | ||
| Sadly, the Liberals and Nationals didn't support it at the time. | ||
| Peter Dutton and Susan Lay said that they will now. | ||
| That's good. We need to keep Australians safe from this terrible stuff on social media. | ||
| And Elon Musk doesn't dictate to the Australian government what we are doing here domestically with our laws. | ||
| What do you even say to that? | ||
| Like, this guy Elon Musk, he's so egotistical and arrogant. | ||
| He thinks he can just say whatever he wants. | ||
| So that's egotistical. | ||
| You just want to say what you want. | ||
| But you're the people saying, we are the only ones who are allowed to speak freely. | ||
| We are the arbiters of truth. | ||
| If we don't say it, you're not allowed to... | ||
| Say it. I mean, which is more egotistical? | ||
| Wanting to provide a platform where anybody can speak freely or thinking that you alone have the right to speak? | ||
| You alone have the truth and everyone must adhere to what you believe and nobody else. | ||
| Talk about egotistical and arrogant. | ||
| Keep fighting the good fight, Elon Musk. | ||
| We depend on you. | ||
| We'll be back on the other side. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Don't go anywhere, folks. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. | |
| Welcome back. This is the American Journal. | ||
| We got a lot of stories about, let's talk about what's going on with, on the college campuses these days. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Obviously there are big protests. | |
| Breaking out on college campuses, where obviously, since the foundation of colleges, this is where a lot of political movements start. | ||
| They get going in their nascent form. | ||
| And you're always going to find people on college campuses in the farthest end of the spectrum, whatever political sphere you're in. | ||
| And the reaction to this has been astonishing, really. | ||
| I'll say again, it just... | ||
| Alone, it's not that big of a deal. | ||
| It's only in context of what America has been through for the last few years that makes these statements really intolerable from people like Josh Hawley and Elise Stefanik, whatever her name is. | ||
| And we really don't need to go over this again, because we've been over it so many times. | ||
| We went over it extensively with, you know, when they ousted the Harvard president, Claudine Gay, and actually managed to blame it on conservatives claiming that it was about DEI, despite the fact that we've been railing against DEI, CRT, critical race theory, affirmative action, and all these things for literally decades. | ||
| Can't get even the remotest You know, support from the government. | ||
| You can sit there going, hey, they're literally teaching courses calling end whiteness. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's an official course. | |
| That's bad. It's bad that you've got college professors teaching courses that demonize a race of people and call for their literal extinction. | ||
| And it's just crickets, just silence, just nobody cares. | ||
| Nobody cares. All of a sudden there's protest against the nation state of Israel, and Josh Hawley is saying literally, send in the soldiers, gun them down, essentially. | ||
| If this was just in line with their stance generally, it would be outrageous to still be something that I'd be against. | ||
| It wouldn't be that big of a deal. | ||
| It's only in context of years and years and years of blatantly anti-white activity of just, I mean, since 2015 pretty much, or 2016 at the very latest, the Battle of Berkeley, these sorts of things, where conservative speakers would go to have a talk and they would be literally viciously attacked by Antifa with bike locks and shields and phalanxes, spears, stabbings, like all sorts of insane stuff. | ||
| Nobody really said anything. | ||
| I mean, it wasn't a big deal. It's like, well, you know, you're going to their campus. | ||
| You're saying things they don't want to say. | ||
| Maybe they have a right to smack you in the head with a bike walk. | ||
| Like, that's the attitude we got. | ||
| When it's actively protest against an ethnic group, a race, the nation in which they literally live at this moment, those things are all totally fine to protest violently if they want. | ||
| Protest Israel, well, send in the National Guard. | ||
| That's literally what Josh Hawley said. | ||
| Josh Hawley calls on Biden to send a National Guard to protect Jewish students on Columbia's campus. | ||
| And you would think, from a headline like that, that Jews were under threat on Columbia's campus. | ||
| That there had been attacks against Jews on Columbia's campus. | ||
| I mean, some physical violence for which the National Guard would be necessary. | ||
| Those things have not happened. | ||
| That doesn't exist. There's just protesters saying mean things to Jews. | ||
| Is that a bad thing? | ||
| Sure. Was it bad when they did it to white people? | ||
| Yeah. Is there a bit of a discrepancy between the reaction to these two things? | ||
| Big time. Is that discrepancy perhaps hint and point to? | ||
| A much more significant problem in this country, especially with our leadership. | ||
| Oh boy, it does. Boy does it. | ||
| Republican Missouri Senator Josh Hawley sent a letter Monday to President Joe Biden calling on him to deploy the National Guard to protect Jewish American students on Columbia University's campus as protests are ongoing. | ||
| The Daily Caller first obtained a copy of the letter to Biden in which Hawley says that Jewish Americans are currently at risk on college campuses. | ||
| At risk of hearing ideas that they disagree with. | ||
| At risk of hearing a genocide condemned. | ||
| Hawley specifically mentions how in-person classes were canceled at Columbia University on Passover due to ongoing protests that Hawley described as an illegal pro-Hamas demonstration. | ||
| Is it illegal? | ||
| Is it illegal to demonstrate? | ||
| Are you using this as an excuse to claim that free speech is somehow illegal because it's free speech against Jews? | ||
| Not even against Jews, against the nation state of Israel. | ||
| Hawley says Biden must, quote, immediately mobilize the National Guard and any other necessary authorities to ensure the safety of Jewish American students and citizens. | ||
| He says in 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower deployed the National Guard and 101st Airborne Division to ensure the safety of black students attending Central High in Little Rock, Arkansas. | ||
| Because remember, diversity is our strength and it has to be carried out at the end of a bayonet. | ||
| Diversity is such a necessary and positive thing that if you aren't okay with it, they will shoot and kill you. | ||
| Just what a good thing it is. | ||
| Such a wonderful, magical, beautiful thing that if you don't like it, prepare for the National Guard to be sent in to teach you what a wonderful thing it is. | ||
| Not sure if I have the video here. | ||
| I don't think I put it in. | ||
| But Joe Biden's basically just did the there's good people on both sides thing. | ||
| You know, the thing that Trump said about the Charlottesville rally. | ||
| He basically said, yeah, there's good people on both sides. | ||
| Like, almost verbatim, what Trump said, which is hilarious. | ||
| The other funny part of this, and I saw this observation on Twitter. | ||
| I can't remember who to credit it to, but... | ||
| The funny part is that both sides of this protest are going to vote for Biden, no matter what. | ||
| This is an inter-Democrat party squabble that they're having. | ||
| It doesn't matter what happens. | ||
| Both groups are definitely... | ||
| I mean, if you are a pro-Hamas activist or a Jewish student in an Ivy League university, I'd be willing to bet a pretty hefty sum of money that you're going to vote Democrat in the next campaign. | ||
| So it really doesn't matter what Biden says at this point. | ||
| The Democrats don't base their decisions off of developments in reality. | ||
| They base their decisions off of tribalism and identity. | ||
| So, Joe Biden can say whatever he wants or not say whatever he wants. | ||
| It doesn't really matter. | ||
| But Josh Hawley's not the only one calling for, you know, extreme measures because of this. | ||
| More stories here. Hawley demands Biden use National Guard to protect Jewish students amid pro-Hamas campus protests. | ||
| This is the actual statement from Hawley himself, which is funny. | ||
| I mean, he's talking about shutting down the university on Passover. | ||
| Wouldn't Passover be a day that Jews wouldn't go to college anyway? | ||
| Whatever. I mean, no, this makes any sense. | ||
| Anyway, a coordinated anti-Israel action has erupted at Columbia. | ||
| Demonstrators have illegally established a Gaza solidarity encampment on the university's campus and engaged in shocking displays of anti-Semitism, assaults on Jewish students, the theft and attempted burning of an Israeli flag, the violent genocidal rhetoric such as never forget the 7th of October... | ||
| This will happen not one more time, but five more times, not ten more times, not 100 more times, not 1,000 more times, but 10,000 times. | ||
| Well, send that person to jail, obviously. | ||
| Free speech? We love it. | ||
| Against Jews? Not in my America. | ||
| Elise Stefanik, all New York House GOP lawmakers demand Columbia President Shafiq resign immediately. | ||
| Resign immediately. As leader of this institution, one of your chief objectives morally and under law is to ensure students have a safe learning environment. | ||
| By every measure, you have failed in this obligation. | ||
| Again, it's just stuff they would never say about white students, never say about Christian students. | ||
| It's not even bad that they're like, hey, Jews should be safe on campus. | ||
| Yeah, they should. It really only is in context with their really blatant disregard of the safety of everybody except for Jewish students. | ||
| Really, it says a lot. T minus 13 minutes until blastoff. | ||
| We are 13 minutes away from the great flat earth debate. | ||
| Look at this fakery. | ||
| Look at this nonsense. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Look at these hundreds of hours of fake footage. | |
| All comporting perfectly with our knowledge of physics. | ||
| How dare they. Look at all these liars pretending to do work. | ||
| They're all running Photoshop. | ||
| It's just a bunch of dudes in a big room running Photoshop. | ||
| All right. Yeah, we're 10 minutes away, or 12 minutes away at this point from the big debate. | ||
| We'll welcome Austin Witsit, and I'll do my best not to alienate half of our audience by destroying flat Earth once and for all. | ||
| Very excited for that. We have some other good news here. | ||
| Interesting news, but I think it's good. | ||
| It points to a possible positive development, a slight minimization of the slippery slope down which we are careening. | ||
| Brett Kavanaugh's questioning of January 6 charges sparks fury. | ||
| One way to put it. Thank God. | ||
| Thank God Trump got into office. | ||
| Just another little thing to meditate on here to really consider the alternative. | ||
| What if Hillary Clinton had gotten to choose? | ||
| What did Trump choose? Did he choose three, right? | ||
| Comey Barrett, Kavanaugh, and what's his name? | ||
| Gorsuch. Can you imagine if it was instead like Merrick Garland, Anthony Blinken, and... | ||
| Alejandro Mayorkas, right? | ||
| Can you imagine the Supreme Court if instead of 6-3 conservative, it was 6-3 progressive? | ||
| No matter what else happens from Donald Trump's foray into politics, he may have saved the country with that alone, the Supreme Court picks that he chose. | ||
| Who aren't perfect, and they've made some disappointing decisions in the past, but overall, have been fantastic, as far as I can tell. | ||
| The decisions I've seen them make seem to be the right ones. | ||
| So conservative justice, who form a 6-3 majority on the court, expressed concerns about the decision by prosecutors to apply the anti-obstruction provision of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which is passed in response to the financial scandal that brought down energy company Enron to Fisher's case. | ||
| Brett Kavanaugh said, Game planning that's gone into January 6th has been for the purpose of setting the foundation to go after Trump eventually. | ||
| In other words, if they could get this through the Supreme Court, then they set the precedent to get the same convictions for Donald Trump that they got for the January 6th convicted people. | ||
| Now, if this is overturned, not only will that really just throw a wrench into the whole works and it may basically undo the convictions of hundreds of January 6th But it would also, you know, prevent them from using that same charge that they're currently trying to level at Donald Trump. | ||
| But is that really enough? | ||
| I mean, if you have arrested somebody, take them away from their family, cost them God knows how much money and legal fees, essentially torture them with isolation and, you know, force them to sleep on a blanket on a concrete floor in a room where the light never turns off and the heat never comes on. | ||
| And then they go, oh, actually the law that we did this to you under isn't right and it's not the right law and it shouldn't have ever been used for this. | ||
| Sorry about that. You're free to go. | ||
| Like, is that good enough? Is that good enough? | ||
| I mean, what are these people going to get in recompense? | ||
| What is going to be the redress for this? | ||
| Because there were people that were arrested for Black Lives, you know, for participating in the Black Lives Matter riots in New York and Philadelphia and other major U.S. cities that have been paid out millions of dollars. | ||
| Not because they were roughed up, not because they were mistreated. | ||
| They didn't even spend a significant time behind bars or under arrest. | ||
| They just got arrested, got processed, got released, and they've received checks for millions of dollars. | ||
| So what's the recompense? | ||
| What's the redress for what they've done to the January 6th prisoners with no legal backing or legitimacy whatsoever? | ||
| Lawyers for Fisher argue the provision was meant to close a loophole in criminal law, and this is the case. | ||
| I mean, the way that this article is worded is very sneaky, very weaselly. | ||
| Even the headline, Brett Kavanaugh's questioning of January 6th charges sparks fury. | ||
| As if it's the fury that's the point. | ||
| As if it's Brett Kavanaugh doing something bad that's making people angry. | ||
| You really have to look into why they word certain things the way that they do. | ||
| Brett Kavanaugh's questioning of January 6th charges, who cares if it sparks fury? | ||
| It's right. | ||
| It's correct. | ||
| How about Brett Kavanaugh's questioning of January 6th charges exposes giant gaping hole in the government's arguments? | ||
| How about Brett Kavanaugh's questioning of January 6th charges reveals the whole thing is an utter farce in that our government is acting illegally, tyrannically, despotically to torture and imprison innocent people. | ||
| But no, sorry, it's the fury that we're supposed to worry about the anger that questioning the tyrants causes and the tyrants. | ||
| The tyrants get angry when you question them, and that's the point of this headline, right? | ||
| Same type of thing when they say, lawyers for Fisher argue this provision was meant to close a loophole. | ||
| That's not up for debate. | ||
| That is absolutely what the criminal law was passed for. | ||
| It was passed for a very specific point, and it was to close a loophole that allowed People that were under investigation to destroy evidence, and they didn't want them to destroy evidence, so they passed this law. | ||
| That's not an argument from Fisher's lawyers. | ||
| That's just the history of the law that you're talking about. | ||
| So again, it's just the weasel words, the manipulation, the rhetorical trickery that takes place is endless. | ||
| Let's read it. Lawyers for Fisher argue the provision was meant to close a loophole in criminal law and discourage the destruction of records in response to an investigation that had never been used to prosecute anything besides evidence tampering until the Capitol riot. | ||
| So they passed this law explicitly to deal with evidence tampering for years and years. | ||
| That's the only way in which it is used until suddenly the deep state wants to charge 10,000 Americans who haven't committed a crime. | ||
| They go looking through the rule book to find something they could tangentially apply. | ||
| They choose this and apply it ruthlessly and incorrectly to hundreds of cases. | ||
| And now hopefully that will be overturned. | ||
| During oral arguments, conservative justices questioned whether federal prosecutors went too far by applying the statute to capital attack and said the law was so broad it could even be used against peaceful protesters. | ||
| Again, correction has been used against peaceful protesters. | ||
| Has exclusively been used against peaceful protesters. | ||
| Because guess what? If they weren't peaceful protesters, you wouldn't have to use this law. | ||
| If somebody attacked a police officer, that's what they were charged with. | ||
| Somebody destroyed material in the Capitol. | ||
| That's what they were charged with. | ||
| It was only the people who did nothing other than enter the Capitol that you have to try to fabricate and come up with some law to charge them with. | ||
| In this case, it's obstruction of justice. | ||
| So not only could this be used to go after peaceful protesters, the only reason you would use it would be to go after peaceful protesters. | ||
| And that's exactly what they've done. | ||
| Kavanaugh questioned whether the obstruction charge was necessary given the range of other criminal counts brought against Fisher. | ||
| Exactly. | ||
| why aren't those six counts good enough Solicitor General Elizabeth Preligar, the Biden administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, responded to the charges. | ||
| Do not reflect the culpability of Fisher's conduct. | ||
| I mean, we covered this a little bit last week. | ||
| When similar arguments were being made at the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court justices had similar objections to the way in which these laws were being implemented, but that's still going on and we await the decision that could very well overturn the entire January 6th prosecutorial circus that we've been living under for the past several years. | ||
| Alright folks, when we come back we'll be joined by Austin Whitsitt. | ||
| At WhitsItGetsIt, and we'll be debating whether the Earth is flat or round. | ||
| I'm so excited for this. | ||
| I mean, I am, but at the same time, how has it come to this? | ||
| Today's debate will be brought to you by Brain Force Ultra. | ||
| We just got a big old shipment in, so make sure to go down to Infowarsstore.com, and we'll see you on the other side for the great debate. | ||
| Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the American Journal. | ||
| I'm your host, Harrison Smith. | ||
| My guest and opponent today is Austin Witsit. | ||
| He is a flat-earther. | ||
| He's our guest today who's going to be debating on behalf of Flat Earth Theory. | ||
| If you want to know more about Austin or Flat Earth Theory, you can follow him on X at WitsitGitsit or by going to WitsitGitsit.com. | ||
| Austin Witsit, thank you for joining us. | ||
| Welcome to the show. Absolutely, man. | ||
| Thanks for having me on. How's it going, brother? | ||
| Pretty good. And so about a month ago, InfoWars Twitter account put out a question. | ||
| Who do you want to see Harrison Smith debate? | ||
| And your name was by and like far and away the most popular response. | ||
| Why is that? Why is there this hunger for the flat earth debate? | ||
| But for you in particular, do you think? | ||
| I think I've done pretty well in the debates, and typically the opponents are not all that worthy, humbly. | ||
| They're just not typically as informed. | ||
| So I think that, especially with Infowars, there's a huge crossover, right? | ||
| They just want to see the position accurately represented by On kind of the big stage, if you were. | ||
| So I think that's probably more what it is. | ||
| I think a bunch of people think I'll accurately represent what we think. | ||
| Well, and obviously there's been a lot of comments I've seen saying either this won't happen because InfoWars is controlled or, I don't know, all sorts of speculation about why InfoWars doesn't cover Flat Earth Theory. | ||
| But let me just ask you, because we got a little first five-minute segment, and then we're going to have two questions. | ||
| 23, 25-minute segments to close out this hour. | ||
| We're doing minimal commercial breaks here. | ||
| We're on the radio, so we have to take some, but we're going to take them minimally. | ||
| So in the first five minutes, I just wanted to introduce you and sort of talk about the idea and everything. | ||
| How did you get into Flat Earth in the first place? | ||
| Yeah, so similar to what a lot of people say, so you have the side that says InfoWars is a controlled opposition. | ||
| They won't talk about Flat Earth. | ||
| And then you have the side that says it's a CIA PSYOP used to distract I had a similar response. | ||
| It's funny, actually, I heard about it through the rapper B.O.B. Right. | ||
| So he was dropping the Elements mixtapes, and he was basically 100% on point with all the conspiracy theories he was mentioning in the mixtapes, right? | ||
| I had researched all of them. | ||
| Then he said the Earth was flat. | ||
| And I was like, wow, bro, you just made me look ridiculous to everyone I was telling to listen to you, right? | ||
| Yeah. And then, like, similar to most people, I had the initial reaction of, what does that even mean? | ||
| And then you start to just ask a thousand questions of, well, how would this work on flat Earth? | ||
| Well, how would that work? That doesn't even make sense to me. | ||
| So then I just went to look up pictures of the Earth from space. | ||
| I'm like, this is gonna be easy. | ||
| I have millions of pictures. | ||
| And that was not the case. | ||
| You know, this was 2015. And the last claimed picture to even be real at that time was 1972 for the Apollo missions. | ||
| And needless to say, I was already very skeptical of the Apollo missions. | ||
| So immediately I thought, okay, well, there may be something here, right? | ||
| There should be millions of real pictures. | ||
| I should have live HD live streams of the Earth from space. | ||
| So... That's how it started, and then I kind of fell down the rabbit hole. | ||
| And I think this is an important part of it all as well. | ||
| You'll instinctively just say, well, you know, how would eclipses work? | ||
| How does this work? How does that work? | ||
| And if you can't find an answer, you think, oh, well, then it can't be flat. | ||
| The actual way you have to go about it, and this is why all flat earthers exist, is they went to disprove flat earth, and more so they went to prove the globe. | ||
| And then when you look for the actual evidence that supports the claimed size of the globe, you've run into problems, right? | ||
| And so if we falsify the globe, we don't really need to replace it, or it remains true. | ||
| So that's pretty much my really succinct journey through this, is I just went to look for evidence of the globe. | ||
| I went and made observations myself. | ||
| It just didn't stack up. | ||
| And needless to say, years later, It just gets worse and worse and you know I can assure the audience Flat Earth is going nowhere because of the lack of evidence so Yeah, that's kind of my journey really quickly. | ||
| Yeah. Well, it is interesting, and we'll get into the actual debate portion here on the other side. | ||
| It's sort of the first debate we've held, so it'll be interesting, but I guarantee it'll be fun. | ||
| Let me mention, today's debate is brought to you by BrainForceUltra, InfoWarsStore.com. | ||
| Take your BrainForceUltra, and we'll hit the ground running on the other side. | ||
| Stay with us. Short 60-second commercial break, and we'll be back with Austin Witsit to debate Flat Earth. | ||
| All right, welcome back, ladies and gentlemen, to the great Flat Earth debate, myself and Austin Witsit. | ||
| Austin Witsit can be found on X at Witsit Gets It and his website, WitsitGetsIt.com, where he talks Flat Earth, as well as a number of other conspiracies. | ||
| And so I figured the way that we would do this, I've seen other, you know, online debates do it where both sides will take about a 10-minute opening statement to state their stances, if you need all 10 minutes or not. | ||
| And Austin and I talked during the break and We've decided I'll go first, then Austin will get 10 minutes to respond. | ||
| That sound good? Sounds great. | ||
| All right. Okay, so I'll just go ahead and begin. | ||
| I want to start with sort of three preconditions from my perspective, what I'm bringing into this debate. | ||
| First of all, I do not care if people believe in flat earth. | ||
| I have absolutely no stake in the matter. | ||
| I don't think people that believe in flat earth are stupid. | ||
| I don't think that, like, I understand the impulse. | ||
| I understand... We're good to go. | ||
| I barely have education in the matter. | ||
| I have no loyalty to NASA or any other governmental organization whatsoever. | ||
| Just like all government organizations, NASA lies all the time. | ||
| That doesn't mean the Earth is flat. | ||
| But three, in my position as a professional conspiracy theorist, I'm really incentivized to actually believe in flat Earth, if anything. | ||
| I know there's a huge and extremely supportive audience of flat earthers, and if I was cynical and... | ||
| Greedy, I would pretend to support Flat Earth because I know the support that that could get me. | ||
| If anything, I'm sort of anti-pandering here. | ||
| I know about half my audience believes in Flat Earth, but I simply don't. | ||
| And, you know, it would really seem like it would be in line with my general position, which is questioning authorities and questioning the official story. | ||
| But at the end of the day, I just sincerely don't believe it. | ||
| So those are sort of my preconditions. | ||
| I don't have any training. I'm not loyal to any, you know, science. | ||
| I'm not a trust-the-science type of guy. | ||
| I don't actually care if you believe in flat Earth, and I'm really incentivized, if anything, to believe in flat Earth, but I just don't. | ||
| And so why I'm against the flat Earth, also I can sort of divide into three parts. | ||
| One, I just genuinely do not think it's true. | ||
| I researched flat Earth. | ||
| I'd heard about it. Like you, I had gone in going, actually, I went saying I'm ready to be convinced. | ||
| I've heard people think the Earth is flat. | ||
| I think that's awesome. | ||
| Let me be convinced. | ||
| I went in with a sincere willingness to be convinced. | ||
| I found the arguments against the widely accepted heliocentric model to be entirely unconvincing. | ||
| So I just don't think it's true. | ||
| Two, I think the spiritual interpretations are total nonsense. | ||
| Regardless of the cosmic model, Earth, I believe, is a priceless jewel of unsurpassed galactic importance. | ||
| I see God's handiwork in all of creation, including the divinely arranged solar system. | ||
| If anything, I find the concept of flat Earth Completely out of step with the rest of creation, and I can explain that later. | ||
| But three, I think the overall discussion about Flat Earth is detrimental. | ||
| I'd almost go so far as to say toxic to the discussion that we have every day, which is about the lies told by government to keep us under control. | ||
| I actually, in doing my research, I really came to the conclusion that, if anything, Flat Earth is a PSYOP, promoted by the powers that be to distract, divide, and discredit the truth movement. | ||
| So, breaking down those three portions. | ||
| Here's how I see it. There are natural phenomena that I can observe every day with my eyes that have no readily apparent explanation. | ||
| The sun, the moon, the stars, eclipses, sunsets, sunrises. | ||
| These things are... Evident, but mysterious. | ||
| I don't have an answer to them. | ||
| Evidently, prima facie, you know, just from my own observation. | ||
| So if somebody came to me and told me that we're standing on a stationary plane and that there's a dome above us that rotates at a continuous, you know, degree, and the moon and sun revolve around the Earth, I would say that makes sense. | ||
| Yeah, that comports with my observation. | ||
| It certainly could be the case. | ||
| But if somebody else came along and said, well, actually, the reason the sun looks like it's circling around is because the Earth is spinning. | ||
| All the other aspects of the heliocentric model, I'd have to say, yeah, that also makes sense. | ||
| I can also picture that as being true. | ||
| But then you have things like stars that don't behave like other stars. | ||
| Whatever you want to call stars. The points of light, there are some that wander, right? | ||
| Planets. That's where the term planet comes from. | ||
| They seem to wander independently. | ||
| Now, if you assume the Earth is at the center of these planets, you can actually map the paths. | ||
| They're just sort of twirly, wiggly lines. | ||
| But you can do it, and you can predict them, and you can actually track them and measure it, assuming that the Earth is the center. | ||
| That does make sense. It's just you're going to get sort of a different path for each planet that make different motions depending on the time of day. | ||
| But then if you shift the center, the assumed center to the sun and you take a heliocentric model, all of these disseparate and seemingly random paths just go, just shoot right in the middle. | ||
| Suddenly it's all very nice, clean, explicable, concentric circles. | ||
| That makes absolute sense. | ||
| Obviously, these planets all seem to be affected by the same force, not completely different forces that give them different paths. | ||
| They all actually take pretty much a similar path, just in a concentric circle model. | ||
| So basically I've got two people in front of me. | ||
| I just picture myself as like a goat herder in Greece 2,000 years ago. | ||
| I just see this stuff and I've got two people in front of me. | ||
| One that's got an argument for flat earth and the other that argues for the globe earth. | ||
| And I know that, you know, in your argumentation, you like to present the Globerth side as presenting a model, therefore it's making a positive claim, therefore it has the burden of proof. | ||
| But to me, these claims are equally burdened. | ||
| I mean, they're both claiming to be able to explain what I'm seeing. | ||
| Just because one side claims to be able to provide a model and the other side doesn't, doesn't mean that that second... | ||
| I'm looking for an explanation for these things and one side can present it, the other side can't. | ||
| So the tactic I've seen you take is sort of almost assume, like take the position as if it's a trial, like a criminal trial where the prosecutor has the burden of proof and your job is to simply disprove or undermine or cause reasonable doubt in those claims. | ||
| Like if NASA is the prosecutor and Flat Earth as the defendant. | ||
| But that's not the case. | ||
| I mean, again, I see both of these arguments having a burden of proof to some degree. | ||
| But even if this was a criminal proceeding and that was the case, that reasonable doubt was the standard, I still would have to say guilty because the prosecution's case is airtight. | ||
| You can nitpick at their evidence, but I've really seen nothing that undermines the core argument. | ||
| So their story makes sense. | ||
| It fits all of the evidence. | ||
| And we can get into all of the evidence for flat Earth later, but there isn't any. | ||
| So that'll be an issue. | ||
| And in the second part, that's the first part. | ||
| Just from my observation, what I'm seeing, looking for an answer, the heliocentric, spinning Earth, round Earth model fits everything that I see, explains it to a very high degree. | ||
| And even if there's, you know, Little things I don't understand here or there. | ||
| It doesn't do anything to make me think the whole model is fake. | ||
| So that's just why I don't buy the flat earth arguments. | ||
| But the second part is the spiritual aspect to this. | ||
| And simply said, I do not believe that the shape of the earth has any spiritual importance whatsoever. | ||
| Flat earthers seem to ascribe extreme spiritual significance to the shape of earth. | ||
| I do not. Whether the earth is flat or not, I feel the same way about God. | ||
| In fact, I think the globe earth model comports more with my vision of God as it is a sweeping, majestic, minutely detailed, intricate image. | ||
| And perfect model just like most things in creation. | ||
| A flat Earth model to me is childish and simplistic in comparison. | ||
| Nothing else in creation that I can observe makes me feel like I'm in God's celestial hamster cage that the firmament would represent. | ||
| That being said, I know that this belief is essential to understanding the why of the conspiracy. | ||
| The idea that making people believe that we're on a planet spinning through Earth It makes people think we're less significant, is therefore it's easy to sway people towards a materialistic understanding of the Earth. | ||
| I don't believe that in the first place, but obviously that would be the reason why, the primary reason why they would want to keep the shape of the Earth secret, if that was the case. | ||
| So let's confront this conspiracy, because it would be a massive conspiracy necessary to uphold a lie of this magnitude. | ||
| And it doesn't even make sense as a concept, right? | ||
| If you put yourself in the position of people who are trying to keep this secret, there are like a million other ways you could do it. | ||
| I've only been about a minute left, so I'll just stream through these. | ||
| Basically, the scale of the conspiracy necessary to keep this up is too vast to be feasible. | ||
| Millions of people have worked on space programs. | ||
| Either they're all in it, or there's some sort of parallel industry constantly psyoping the people in the space industry. | ||
| Whether satellites or balloons, every image from space is CGI, rocket launches fall into the ocean. | ||
| Just one of these would require thousands of people working for decades in absolute secrecy, and the payoff is what exactly? | ||
| Possibly weaken people's faith? | ||
| The scale of deception necessary is frankly too great, and the payoff is non-existent. | ||
| The third part is the PSYOP, and we can get into this a little bit, but... | ||
| Essentially, the only thing that gave me pause when researching Flat Earth was the fact that there are, like, fact checks and that it is, in fact, censored. | ||
| Clearly, it is censored to some degree, not to as great a degree as other things, but I know we should all recognize at this point the YouTube videos that have the little Wikipedia box under are probably worth paying attention to. | ||
| So that gave me a little bit of pause, but then again, just because something is censored doesn't mean it is therefore true, and we know things like QAnon are censored, but also entirely fraudulent. | ||
| To me, looking over the timeline, the growth of Flat Earth does not seem remotely organic. | ||
| If you search news archives by years, there's no mention of Flat Earth at all, pretty much until 2013, until Obama, of all people, brings up the Flat Earth Society. | ||
| And yeah, it seems like it came out of nowhere. | ||
| Nobody mentioned it before about 2013, and suddenly it's everywhere. | ||
| It's the transgender movement of conspiracy theories. | ||
| Nobody had ever heard of it a decade ago, but now... | ||
| About 25% of people make it their entire personality. | ||
| So that's my feeling on Flat Earth. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The floor is yours, Austin. Nice. | |
| So I'm just going to try to address some of the meta things you mentioned here because that was a similar approach I wanted to take. | ||
| We can get into the specifics in the open discussion. | ||
| So like I said, I originally thought this must be a psyop and it's used to discredit all the other conspiracy theories, right? | ||
| But that actually is not the case. | ||
| You know, actually on the back of Alex's book, right, or Tucker's book, it mentions Alex. | ||
| It says, you know, he's super censored. | ||
| Why would you have to do that if he's just wrong? | ||
| He must be onto something. They don't censor flat earthers. | ||
| And as you accurately pointed out, they absolutely do. | ||
| And I've been kicked off Venmo, PayPal, Airbnb. | ||
| We're talking about cosmology. | ||
| As to why it's not as censored, there's no cover story, right? | ||
| So with everything else, it's hate speech, it's dangerous, blah, blah, blah. | ||
| It's dangerous medical misinformation that could hurt people. | ||
| What can you say about Flat Earth? | ||
| Really nothing, right? | ||
| So there's no even cover story to actually censor it completely. | ||
| What do they do? | ||
| They shadow ban it, which is arguably worse because when Alex Jones gets kicked off everything, everyone wants to know why. | ||
| When you're still on YouTube, people think, oh, you're not censored, and then they can't find you. | ||
| Like if you search flat earth, you can nothing but hit pieces. | ||
| So it did absolutely explode. | ||
| Obviously, the conversation would be, is it organic or not? | ||
| But like you said, they pointed to the Flat Earth Society, which is specifically crafted misinformation. | ||
| So that's like probably the strongest piece of evidence off the rip against the PSYOP narrative is when I looked into it, all the information that was presented to me as Flat Earth is not what Flat Earth actually was. | ||
| It turns out it's totally different. | ||
| It makes the position asinine and it's not actually what they think. | ||
| And so that's exactly what you would do if you're discrediting the truth. | ||
| And as to the comparison to, say, QAnon, we know QAnon had a lot of truth in it. | ||
| The reason QAnon worked was because it had a lot of truth. | ||
| And so basically it was, don't get to these truths if you're going to, we're going to round you up and guide how you interpret those truths, similar to Operation Trust, right? | ||
| And just sit on your hands, don't do anything. | ||
| So if it's a PSYOP, it hasn't worked very well because every single flat earther saw through the pandemic immediately. | ||
| Every single flat earther protects their children from the onslaught of propaganda, probably the highest percentage of homeschooling You know, in the world, it would be flat earthers. | ||
| So as to it mattering or not, I'll touch on that. | ||
| You did mention that it does have spiritual implications in our opinion, and you articulated disagreement, but it's pretty undeniable. | ||
| So the conversation really comes down to two primary points, and is the earth moving? | ||
| Is the earth a sphere? Those are the two primary things, and they're technically independent of each other, right? | ||
| So the earth could be stationary in a sphere, in theory. | ||
| And when you first go down that rabbit hole, it gets very, very interesting. | ||
| To mention a few things, you obviously have the idea of geocentrism, as you mentioned. | ||
| You mentioned the little squiggly lines. | ||
| Well, it actually is just spiraling within a Taurus field. | ||
| It's exactly the flower of life geometry, which we see all the way from the small scale to the big scale. | ||
| We would actually expect the macro scale to fall within the flower of life because everything does, including the quantum scale. | ||
| But... It's called the Copernican principle. | ||
| That's really like the foundation of this, right? | ||
| It's the idea that the earth does not occupy a special or unique position. | ||
| So I certainly agree with you, bro, that looking at the current model would require a creator. | ||
| This place requires a creator regardless. | ||
| Actually, the first and second law of thermodynamics show you that naturalism is insufficient and you must invoke supernatural creator. | ||
| For the sun and the moon to coincidentally be the same size in the sky, but actually the sun's 400 times bigger, just coincidentally 400 times further away, how is that not requiring an intelligent designer? | ||
| But at the same time, it isn't really about someone could say, well, I already believe in God. | ||
| Well, yeah, but a lot of people don't. | ||
| And atheism is the number one growing ideology, if you can even call it that, which results in nihilism and apathy and makes for perfect enslavement. | ||
| So this is incredibly important. | ||
| And when you look into the emotion part, we were 100% undeniably lied to and misled about that situation. | ||
| We're told that we know the solar system's a fact, and it's been proven the Earth moves around the Sun. | ||
| But in reality, you can look at Stephen Hawking, Edwin Hubble, Albert Einstein, Arthur Eddington, every major prominent astrophysicist or astronomer in history, and they will tell you, oh, we can never disprove that the Earth's in the center. | ||
| We can't actually prove that the Earth is moving. | ||
| It's equally viable or more viable. | ||
| We prefer to not go that route because Stephen Hawking said, on grounds of modesty, and Edwin Hubble called it horrific and intolerable, a special and unique position. | ||
| That's a philosophical We're good to go. | ||
| And that's why all physics are at a standstill now, because they threw out the electrical field theory understanding of a background medium or what is called the ether. | ||
| They kept the Earth moving through space, and now we have this compartmentalization of physics that doesn't all work together. | ||
| So to not overload everyone, my point there is that's one major part of it. | ||
| Yeah, if the Earth is in the center of the universe, it had to be created. | ||
| And I get you could argue that it would have to be created either anyway, but you have a much stronger, illusory position of confidence when you say, oh, well, the universe is so big that the Earth is this tiny speck of dust in this ever-expanding universe, and just based on mere chances and probability, the Earth could exist and be habitable, right? | ||
| And that is the type of thinking that leads people to the idea that, well, no, this place wasn't created. | ||
| It was just random chance, and that it's literally... | ||
| The Copernican principle ideology, which is that the Earth does not occupy a special or unique position. | ||
| So if the Earth's in the center of the universe, obviously someone had to put it there. | ||
| It's the most special, the most unique position. | ||
| There is nothing like it. That means that us humans who have domain on the Earth are obviously very special as well. | ||
| People do not believe in flat Earth. | ||
| They stopped believing in the globe. | ||
| And they then realized, oh wow, this has spiritual implications. | ||
| People do not go and seek out flat earth because they want the Bible to be literally true or something. | ||
| It's quite the opposite. | ||
| People find out that the scriptures are now viable again. | ||
| And so then it also comes into curvature. | ||
| And so that's the two major things, and we falsified the radius value. | ||
| So when it comes to, well, all the model works so well, well, that's also not true, and we can get into it. | ||
| Every single part of the globe Earth model took hundreds of years to theoretically patch together, and it doesn't work. | ||
| From the core all the way to the universe, none of it worked. | ||
| It's not even close. And that's why you have dark matter and dark energy making up 96% of the universe. | ||
| And it's just an illusion that we're in the center because everything's accelerating away from each other. | ||
| All these crazy theories where if you just have the Earth in the center, you don't need any of that. | ||
| And it matches all astronomical observations. | ||
| You don't have to claim that everything is an illusion. | ||
| So why were we not told that? | ||
| That should be a very interesting question for the audience. | ||
| You were lied to about cosmology, like just on its face, even if you want to believe we're moving through space and stuff. | ||
| And then the curvature, obviously, if the radius value is falsified, the entire model is falsified, right? | ||
| Because gravity uses that, day and night cycle uses that, everything uses that, alleged radius of orbit to go to space. | ||
| All of these claims require that radius value be true. | ||
| The distances on the globe So if it's untrue, the entire model is untrue. | ||
| So that's a stillman of our position, is that we went to look for evidence of the globe, and it wasn't there. | ||
| And falsification is independent of replacement. | ||
| And I'll say this analogy, maybe it'll land. | ||
| If I went and looked through my parents' closet and I found adoption papers... | ||
| And I'm like, walk up to you and say, dude, Harrison, you'll never believe it, man. | ||
| My whole life is a lie, bro. | ||
| Those aren't really my parents. | ||
| I was adopted. And you say, well, who are your real parents then? | ||
| I say, I don't know. I just found out that they're not my real parents. | ||
| I just falsified they're my parents. | ||
| I don't really know who the real ones are. | ||
| You could say, wait, you think everyone in town's in on it? | ||
| Everyone in the church is in on it? | ||
| No, no, they believe the lie. | ||
| They believe that those are my parents. | ||
| And if you said, well, until you can tell me who your real parents are, I'm not going to believe that those aren't your real parents. | ||
| That would be ridiculous, right? | ||
| Obviously, the falsification that they're my parents stands on its own. | ||
| That's the way that this situation goes. | ||
| Frankly and respectfully, I would say it's somewhat coping. | ||
| Do not focus on that. | ||
| Focus on the evidence or lack thereof for the positive globe-Earth claim, which is antithetical to all evidence and experience, and then focus on random questions like the meme says, oh, how does everything in the universe work? | ||
| Oh, you don't know? Well, checkmate, stupid flirt, right? | ||
| If you've ever seen that meme, that isn't a proper way to go about it. | ||
| So that's kind of a lot of the meta arguments there. | ||
| I don't really see this being a successful psyop. | ||
| I think that it's done quite the opposite. | ||
| And people should just step back and kind of look at the evidence for what it is. | ||
| And that's what I encourage people to do. | ||
| And just like you said, I will say, just like with everything else, like with the pandemic, we got gaslit the whole time. | ||
| Oh, you science denier this, science denier that. | ||
| Oh, you know, you have no idea what we're talking about. | ||
| Trust the experts. And of course, it was all a lie. | ||
| It was all a lie. So, ridiculing people, mocking people, dismissing them as a psyop and stuff is not an approach we should take as truth. | ||
| We never do that. | ||
| So, long story short, when you look into the actual alleged claim that the Earth is a spinning globe, which, again, is antithetical to experience, So you're saying, well, I think you have the burden of proof as well. | ||
| I agree. If we say that the Earth is flat and stationary, that has a burden. | ||
| And it's substantiated with every observation and all-day experience that we have. | ||
| Everyone experiences the Earth is stationary. | ||
| Everyone experiences that the stuff in the sky moves in relation to the Earth not moving. | ||
| We fly planes like the Earth is flat and stationary. | ||
| We build bridges, runways, railways, all engineering as if the Earth is flat. | ||
| Everything that we do is as if this Earth is stationary and flat. | ||
| The horizon, I mean, it comes from the word horizontal. | ||
| So the default empirical position is that the Earth is flat and stationary and that the sun and the stars and the moon, they move over top of us. | ||
| There's a claim that comes in and says, well, that's actually an illusion, right? | ||
| And everything is back. So that would have the burden of proof, and that's the line of logic for that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
All right, and with that, that is your time, and we are headed to break, guys. | |
| All right, fascinating stuff. We'll do open discussion on the other side. | ||
| If you've got any videos or anything we want to play, we'll get into it on the other side. | ||
| Stay with us, folks. Go to Infowarsstore.com to support this important discussion, and we'll be right back. | ||
|
unidentified
|
All right. Ground control to Major Tom. | |
| All right, welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. | ||
| We're skipping the next commercial break, so we've got a solid 25 minutes to do open discussion with myself and Austin Witsit. | ||
| Again, you can follow Austin at Witsit Gets It on Twitter and witsitgetsit.com. | ||
| I lost my paper that says it, but that's right, right? | ||
| At which it gets it. | ||
| Okay. So yeah, open discussion time. | ||
| Obviously, we both brought a bunch of stuff in our opening statements. | ||
| I guess to me, again, every debate I've watched from Flat Earth sort of has the same paradigm, the same dynamic. | ||
| It's somebody like yourself that's arguing for Flat Earth, and then there's like the Bill Nye the science guy, Neil deGrasse Tyson wannabe. | ||
| And frankly, I don't like... | ||
| I don't really care about the scientific arguments as much when it comes to whether experiments are valid or whether the physics checks out. | ||
| I really do just go down to, like, basic observation and logic and what would be necessary to cover this sort of thing up, and we can get into the PSYOP aspect in just a little bit. | ||
| But, like, the moon is a sphere, right? | ||
| Can we agree on that? Because, I mean, to me, it's pretty undeniable the moon is, in fact, a sphere that we can all see. | ||
| Do you agree with that? Well, I've never seen the other side of the moon, but I would agree that it looks somewhat spherical, sure. | ||
| Okay. But, you know, I've replicated a moon, like, with a polarization where it looks like a sphere. | ||
| And you can walk over there and put your hand right through it, right? | ||
| It's a projection. | ||
| Just with electromagnetic polarization in the Atmos, you could have a... | ||
| I don't know what the moon is, but I would agree, yeah, it does. | ||
| It's certainly round and looks like it could be a sphere. | ||
| I've never seen the other side of it before, so I can't say I know it's a sphere right now. | ||
| But the shadows on the moon certainly make it look like a sphere, right? | ||
| Unless you have another explanation for why the shadow moves the way it does across the moon, it basically has to be a sphere, right? | ||
| Are you saying the moon is a projection or do you think it's a physical object? | ||
| I don't know what the moon is. | ||
| A lot of evidence suggests that it's not particularly solid. | ||
| Even the Astronomical Society said that they've seen stars through the moon. | ||
| There are things called lunar waves. | ||
| The Terminator line, sometimes there will be things lit up on the other side of the Terminator line, which shouldn't be happening if it is a solid sphere with the actual shadow. | ||
| I don't even claim to know that that is, quote-unquote, a shadow. | ||
| We can replicate that with polarized lenses. | ||
| It can just literally be like a plasma polarized lens, and it could be solid for what I know, and just be optically displaced within a medium. | ||
| Both models, I think, when you start hearing the stuff you've never heard, it sounds like I'm just reaching, making stuff up, but no. | ||
| But both models claim that the Sun and the Moon aren't actually where we see them, right? | ||
| That they're apparent positions. | ||
| So that's interesting to know. | ||
| It could be a solid sphere and just not where we see it. | ||
| It could be relative to each observer based on their angle to it. | ||
| But this is what I will say, that is actually kind of a meme. | ||
| Normally people do want to, like, what's the moon? | ||
| I just know that the Earth is not what they said. | ||
| Can I ask you a question? | ||
| You said you're just kind of into observation. | ||
| That's what made me a flat earther, bro. | ||
| Because I did not want to be a flat earther. | ||
| Let's just get that out. It discredited everything I ever said. | ||
| I'm like the conspiracy theorist of my family. | ||
| So all of a sudden I'm going to come around saying the most ridiculous thing ever. | ||
| I'm immediately discredited. | ||
| So, I went out and looked, bro. | ||
| You can see mountains from 300 miles away. | ||
| They should be two, three miles below Earth curvature and you can see them. | ||
| Well, we'll talk about curvature here in just a second. | ||
| But, you know, again, it seems to me like you can see the moon and it's pretty clear what it is. | ||
| It's a rocky body. | ||
| It's solid. You can see the craters. | ||
| I mean, powerful telescopes or even, you know, powerful cameras can zoom in quite a bit and it's not a projection. | ||
| It seems fairly solid to me. | ||
| So, you know, to me, this is, you know, obviously just because the moon is a sphere doesn't mean the earth is a sphere. | ||
| And I know the argument that I've heard quite a bit is like, just because pool balls are circular doesn't mean the pool table is circular. | ||
| Yeah, that's true. Just because the moon is a sphere does not mean that the earth is a sphere, but it might kind of be like a hint, right? | ||
| It might kind of be a clue. And it sort of means that if you use terms... | ||
| That I've heard where it's like this cartoon Earth of, you know, some idea of a orb suspended at nothing. | ||
| It's like, well, that's not actually that ridiculous because we literally see one every day. | ||
| I think the shadows obviously show that it's a sphere. | ||
| And then you have things like the eclipse. | ||
| And, you know, you brought up the fact that the sun is 400 times the size of the moon but 400 times away. | ||
| So it's, you know, a perfect match. | ||
| Yeah, I mean, whether the Sun is 400 times or 200 times, whatever the actual multiplication is, the fact is that with solar eclipses, you can see that the Moon is clearly in front of the Sun, and yet they're the same size. | ||
| So whatever that calculus is, it is... | ||
| The distance is equal to the size difference. | ||
| You know what I'm saying? | ||
| So obviously, the sun is behind the moon. | ||
| The moon is an object that is apparently equivalent in size of the sun because of our distance from it and the perspective of it. | ||
| And again, that sort of... | ||
| I mean, once you... If you accept that, if you accept that the moon is a sphere that's above the earth... | ||
| Everything else kind of follows. | ||
| I mean, I really think that debunks a lot of flat Earth. | ||
| I mean, because then obviously the Moon has to go away for a certain period of time. | ||
| It matches up with the spinning of the Earth. | ||
| I mean, if the Moon is a sphere and is a solid object that's floating above the Earth and circling around it, I mean, that seems to me like it doesn't necessarily prove that we are circling around the Sun, but it certainly proves that the Earth is a sphere and the Moon is circling around us, right? | ||
| To me, again, that's just imminently observable. | ||
| Like I said, it could be a sphere. | ||
| It does somewhat look like a sphere. | ||
| I will just say, stars have been seen through the moon, it appears. | ||
| I think that reality is way more mind-blowing than we know, and people think they have answers to everything, but really, when you look under the hood, there aren't answers for everything. | ||
| But if we kind of talk about that, if we use Occam's razor, that which requires the least amount of assumptions is most likely to be true, doesn't mean it is true. | ||
| But we see the sun and the moon appear to be the same size, and we have a night light and a daylight. | ||
| And they're the same exact size in such an extent that we can get perfect total solar eclipses. | ||
| And they claim that that is just a coincidence based on the way that a Mars-sized body hit the Earth and broke it up and a little piece of debris stuck around the Earth and then gravity coalesced into a sphere that stopped around 238,000 miles away. | ||
| Just coincidentally, the size of that rock matches up with the size of the sun optically, even though it's 400 times smaller than it is. | ||
| That is the case, right? | ||
| I mean, it is the same size prospectively as the Sun, but clearly it's on the same plane as the Sun since it passes in front of it. | ||
| So whatever that differential is, it has to be, I mean, that is accurate, right? | ||
| Sure, but if it was just barely behind it, it would look like the same size. | ||
| So they could be very similar distances in the same size, right? | ||
| Well, no, I mean, they'd have to be a little bit, because they are exactly the same size and different. | ||
| And again, I don't think that just because the moon is a sphere, that means that I trust that they understand how it was created. | ||
| I mean, the moon could be hollow for all we know. | ||
| The whole, like, it rang like a bell when they crashed something into it. | ||
| I mean, there have been a lot of stories. | ||
| I don't think we know everything about the moon's entire life cycle, but I do think it's a sphere in the sky, which, you know, would hint that There are other spheres in the sky. | ||
| It would hint that that's a possibility. | ||
| It would make me question why the moon doesn't fall when everything else falls to Earth because of gravity. | ||
| It would hint that either it's not affected by the force of gravity or it's being affected in a different way. | ||
| Which, to me, explains orbit pretty well, pretty succinctly. | ||
| I want to show a couple images here because this, again, sort of illustrates to me that not only is the moon a sphere, but it's being lit by a light source that is extremely far away. | ||
| We can go to some of the pictures called Ball and Moon. | ||
| And there are a couple of these, but you can do it yourself. | ||
| If you see the moon during the daytime and you hold a ball up, they have essentially the same shadow. | ||
| It will be cast on the ball as the moon because they're both being lit by the same source, which would be the sun, which would be extremely far away. | ||
| So how would this happen without an extremely far away sun lighting both the ball and the moon? | ||
| Well, for one, they actually don't look entirely the same, right? | ||
| You actually see that there's a gradient of light on a sphere project. | ||
| They're pretty similar, though. They are somewhat similar. | ||
| Yes. That's how we made the model, right? | ||
| We looked at the sky, and then we created the model over hundreds of years. | ||
| So, of course, it matches the sky. | ||
| That's how we made it, the globe Earth model. | ||
| But there could be a relationship between it being lit up, but there are many theories about it. | ||
| It's good to have an electromagnetic relationship. | ||
| It could be charging up. | ||
| It could all be within the same energetic cycle above us or whatever. | ||
| I'm not even saying that they don't have a relationship. | ||
| Many people have tried to measure the moonlight and say it isn't high, and there's all debate about that and stuff. | ||
| But this is kind of what I was talking about, though. | ||
| I get that this is probably even a good-faith, genuine question. | ||
| You want to know how everything works. | ||
| And since we've been given all these alleged answers as to how it works, we think, well, Flat Earth has to replace everything I was told is true. | ||
| But not really. We see a star through the moon. | ||
| What they said can't be true. | ||
| Like, we just saw that the moon looks blue during the day. | ||
| And then we showed a picture of the Earth from the moon, which was NASA came out and admitted they photoshopped one of those pictures and didn't tell the public about it, right? | ||
| Just a second ago that was shown. | ||
| So I guess what I'm saying is the... | ||
| Do you agree that if the radius of the globe is falsified, everything else is falsified? | ||
| So as to a question like, how would the moon work on a flat Earth? | ||
| I don't know, but it is. Because we measure the surface of the Earth. | ||
| I think that that is the most important part. | ||
| And I want to say this one more thing. | ||
| When it comes to your right, it's like you can't look at the ceiling and say that's what the floor is, right? | ||
| It's even more than that. It's if the Earth is in the center of the entire universe. | ||
| It would be illogical to think that it's like everything else. | ||
| It's the only thing that's in the middle. | ||
| Everything else was created to move around it. | ||
| So that's an important distinction there that most people don't point out. | ||
| It would be illogical to say the Earth should be like what's in the sky when everything in the sky moves around the Earth. | ||
| The Earth is distinctly different. | ||
| Well, but again, we're dealing with two forms of reality, the perception and the actual, right? | ||
| So it looks like everything's circling around us, but that would also be the case if we were spinning, it would look like everything was circling around us. | ||
| That would mean it was circling around us. | ||
| Again, it doesn't seem to me like there's any evidence that Earth is the center. | ||
| I mean, what about the mapping of planets? | ||
| Because I know one of the things, again, we have an image of this, motion of solar system planets relative to Earth. | ||
| So basically this would be the orbital path that the other planets would take, Mars, Venus, you know, all these other planets. | ||
| If Earth is assumed to be the center and they're... | ||
| They're like, you know, spirals. | ||
| They're like, they move around a lot. | ||
| And if the crew can pull up that picture, motion of solar system, I can pull it up on my screen. | ||
| So, you know, how do you explain these paths and this motion without, you know, a force acting on the planets other than gravity? | ||
| I mean, how do you have a planet going towards and away from us if they're circling around us? | ||
| Well, there is a force. | ||
| Automatically, there's some type of force, right? | ||
| Because everything's moving around. | ||
| If you look at a ferrule cell image of a magnetic field, so it's just a creative invention that was made. | ||
| You use two little pieces of glass. | ||
| You put ferrule fluid and another fluid inside of it, line it with LED lights, and you can see the magnetic field. | ||
| It makes that exact same pattern. | ||
| The Taurus field, sacred geometry, the golden ratio, that Taurus field, every one of those planets pass perfectly within a Taurus field. | ||
| And, of course, the heliocentric side's explanation for this is it's just a coincidence, which is pretty ridiculous because we see the same geometry everywhere. | ||
| But how can it match perfectly when each planet is a different path? | ||
| I mean, they can't all match perfectly because they don't match each other. | ||
| Yeah, but within a Taurus field, there are multiple different paths, right? | ||
| So if you look at a trail cell image, and I could maybe pull it up, but if you look at a magnetic field, you're going to see that all of those patterns are in there individually. | ||
| And basically, each one of these quote-unquote planets are taking their own path within this Taurus field. | ||
| They all fit within it perfectly. | ||
| And you said that you don't see any evidence that the Earth's in the center, right? | ||
| You are aware that the current model says you could never prove that the Earth's not in the center and that all astronomical observations make it appear as if the Earth is in the center of the universe, but that's just an illusion. | ||
| It's an illusion because we're on Earth and this is our only platform from which to observe space. | ||
| Sure, and it gets a little bit more complex than that, though, because even the distant galaxies moved in relation to the Earth. | ||
| So then that's when Edwin Hubble was like, wait a minute, this doesn't make sense. | ||
| And they had to say the whole universe is accelerating and expanding in all directions to create that illusion. | ||
| And then they're like, wait, what causes that to happen, though? | ||
| There has to be some type of energy that would make it expand faster than the speed of light. | ||
| And that's where you get dark energy, which has never been discovered, defined. | ||
| It'll never be found. | ||
| And then you have dark matter to fix the gravity problems. | ||
| I will actually say you can use a Lorentz magnetic force to not get too technical, but it's pretty funny that you can show what's called a dynamic equivalence, meaning the way that the force makes objects move around each other from a geocentric universe. | ||
| And it's a magnetic Lorentzian force. | ||
| And what a coincidence, the patterns of the planets fit perfectly within a magnetic field's geometry. | ||
| So it's more elegant, actually. | ||
| Okay, but none of that actually explains what the force is moving it or how it's set on this path. | ||
| And the other thing is that you would also get paths that match up to this if you were to take a Mars-centric model and plot the movement of the planets as if Mars was the center. | ||
| You would get the same patterns. | ||
| I mean, it's like one of those little toys that has the gear and you put the pencil in and spin the gear around and it creates the pattern. | ||
| It doesn't matter which hole you put it in. | ||
| It creates a similar pattern that will look on the face of it similar to the Taurus field or the magnetic field. | ||
| But that would be true if you plotted the motion of the Earth relative to Venus or Mars or Jupiter or any other planet. | ||
| Earth is not the only one that plotting the rest of the planets creates this design. | ||
| So that, again, is not evidence that Earth is in the center. | ||
| It's evidence that Earth is... | ||
| On the circular path that all the other planets are on, because that's what matches perfectly. | ||
| Well, it's not just about the paths. | ||
| It's about distant galaxies, right? | ||
| So you're right. You can match it on any planet or whatever, and you could treat it as if it's in the center. | ||
| Certainly with relativity, it says it's all equally valid. | ||
| You can choose anything as the center. | ||
| But this is a little different than that. | ||
| They looked out into deep space, quote-unquote, and saw the galaxies moved in relation to the Earth they should not have been. | ||
| In this model, the Earth is tucked away in an insignificant corner of the universe. | ||
| It is a random, non-unique position. | ||
| Everything should be moving every which direction in relation to, say, the singularity of the Big Bang or whatever people believe in, not the Earth. | ||
| But they discovered it was. | ||
| So it's not as simple as just I can put the coordinate system anywhere. | ||
| It's that the universe has to be accelerating and expanding away from every other point. | ||
| There is no center, and everything just makes the Earth look like it's in the center. | ||
| Although you could map it out both ways. | ||
| But that's not... The proof, first of all, it's on its face. | ||
| All observations show the Earth in the center. | ||
| So to say it's not in the center, you're going to have to prove that. | ||
| Then we went and looked further, and even the distant galaxies show that. | ||
| But, I mean... There is the heliocentric model that maps everything and explains everything really well, and you can make predictions based on it that are proven out in observation. | ||
| So, you know, to say that everything centers around the Earth, obviously the heliocentric model is not centered on the Earth, and that's on a very small scale. | ||
| You could say the whole solar system revolves around, or the whole universe revolves around the Earth, but at least in our solar system, it makes a lot more sense that things circle around the Sun. | ||
| I mean, the math, it makes a lot more sense If you assume that the sun is 93 million miles away and this huge ball of gas, if you assume the size of it and then you assume gravity, which is that the bigger the mass, the more gravitational pull, which isn't even considered a pull or force anymore because that doesn't work, but that's actually not true either. | ||
| The helocentric model doesn't work. | ||
| This is why we have dark matter. | ||
| It does, though. It doesn't work because this is why we have dark matter. | ||
| There are certain aspects of it that we haven't figured out yet, but the stuff we have figured out works extremely well, right? | ||
| No, no, no, no. In 1933, a guy named Fritz Swicki went and looked at galaxies, and he saw that this coma cluster, so a cluster of galaxies, it was off by 99% the amount of mass it was supposed to have for gravity to be true. | ||
| And so they just said, oh, well, just plug in a number for missing mass. | ||
| Now they call that missing mass dark matter. | ||
| And it's still there. | ||
| And it makes up 83% of the entire universe. | ||
| This model isn't even close to working. | ||
| Gravity is off by 83%. | ||
| Like, how bad does your theory have to be before it's considered wrong? | ||
| Well, you know, my theory actually, you know, has the possibility of distant galaxies. | ||
| Where are the distant galaxies in the firmament? | ||
| I mean, how can you even make this argument if space doesn't exist? | ||
| Does space exist? No, outer space as defined doesn't exist. | ||
| But just like Edwin Hubble said, everything could be much more local, and the medium could be much more dense. | ||
| And then he said, and might I add, suspiciously young. | ||
| See, they have a bias against this because it creates special position for the Earth, and it makes the universe younger, it makes it a closed system, and it means everything's moving around it. | ||
| And they will tell you in all their literature that it's just a philosophical bias. | ||
| They don't want to believe that. | ||
| And that's not a straw man. | ||
| That's what they say, right? They straight up straight, you can never disprove the earth in the center. | ||
| But the best way to do it is if the earth is moving around the sun, 66,600 miles per hour, conveniently enough, you should be able to measure that, right? | ||
| And we have interferometry that was supposed to measure it and it did not. | ||
| And we've done it since then. | ||
| The Earth is not moving. | ||
| It's been falsified. So Einstein came in and said, oh, well, the device you were using to measure actually shrank. | ||
| You just couldn't tell. | ||
| And then time slowed down and created the illusion that we are stationary and you can't measure us moving. | ||
| That's mainstream claim is that The rulers shrink, effectively, you just can't tell, and time slowed down, it just appears to be the same time to you, and therefore you could never prove that the Earth is moving. | ||
| Or, of course, just the Earth isn't moving, and all observations showing us what's really happening. | ||
| And we weren't told any of this. | ||
| But then that would mean that if the Earth's not moving, then the stars are moving, the Sun is circling around us. | ||
| Again, so we have a firmament dome around a flat Earth. | ||
| I mean, you don't actually have a model, right? | ||
| So what is your conception of what Earth is? | ||
| I mean, again, my conception of Earth is... | ||
| Not exactly super scientific, like I don't know all of the details of it, but it makes perfect sense. | ||
| Earth is spinning, tilted axis, moon orbiting us, we orbit the sun, other planets also orbiting the sun. | ||
| I mean, all of that makes perfect sense. | ||
| Do you have any semblance of a model for flat Earth at all? | ||
| Yeah, sure. So it's a Taurus field. | ||
| Just a Taurus field. And that explains pretty much everything. | ||
| I could pull up an image. | ||
| I don't know if that's possible. But a feral cell image of a Taurus field will show you. | ||
| You can just Google feral cell image, magnetic field. | ||
| You'll see a bunch of them. It's just a Taurus field. | ||
| And there's a vortex in the middle. | ||
| And what a coincidence. | ||
| You take the magnetic flux data of the Earth, you put it on a flat Earth map, and you get a perfect vortex around the center. | ||
| You take the planets and you fit them within the Taurus field. | ||
| It's perfect. And of course, they claim... | ||
| It's not perfect. I mean, you can bring up the image, but it doesn't match perfectly. | ||
| It generally looks somewhat like it, but because magnetic fields, you know, visualized, match the magnetic field of Earth, I mean, that's not even... | ||
| So, I mean, is this your model? | ||
| Or, I mean, that Earth is round, so that can't be it, right? | ||
| No, no. Well, this is a flat Earth. | ||
| Ironically, this is actually the ISS trajectory on the left. | ||
| This right here, and this is a feral cell image of a magnetic field. | ||
| All of these patterns fit perfectly within that. | ||
| And then there's also this. | ||
| This is the magnetic flux data of the magnetic field in the Earth. | ||
| It all fits perfectly within what we see in a magnetic field. | ||
| And this is called a block domain wall. | ||
| It's a plane. | ||
| It's right near the middle. We live on that. | ||
| I'm not... Sorry, I'm just not seeing the images that you're pulling up. | ||
| So if we can... If you can share your screen, I just want to make sure we know what you're talking about exactly. | ||
| Sorry, yeah. I am sharing screen on Skype right now, but I don't know if you can see it. | ||
| We'll figure that out. We have about... | ||
| We have about two minutes to break, but we'll work that out with the crew during the break here. | ||
| But what about... | ||
| And I got some more images I want to show you. | ||
| Again, I really just don't think that saying Earth is a Taurus field... | ||
| I mean, that's not a physical description of where we are or how the world is composed or the universe is composed. | ||
| I mean, is there a firmament? | ||
| What is underneath us? | ||
| Are we on a flat plane? | ||
| Is there a map you can present to me? | ||
| That makes any sense at all. | ||
| Is Antarctica an ice wall or is it a continent that exists? | ||
| I mean, what is the actual argument saying that it's a magnetic or torus field? | ||
| That's not actually a physical description of where we are. | ||
| Well, shouldn't we apply the same logic that we do with everything else that we look into as truthers? | ||
| Basically, our critique is that we're not a cult of thought. | ||
| You're right. We all think for ourselves, and we're all trying to figure out what's going on. | ||
| And there was a cultish belief system presented to us that you're not allowed to question without being ridiculed. | ||
| But what's beneath us? | ||
| I don't know. What's beneath you on the globe? | ||
| The deepest hole ever dung is 7.8 miles. | ||
| No one knows what's below 8 miles. | ||
| No one. And the globe model admittedly can't even explain it mathematically within their model with supercomputers. | ||
| And what is Antarctica? | ||
| You can't freely and privately explore past the 60th south latitude. | ||
| We effectively live in a real life hunger games. | ||
| That's a real thing, whether you think there's a globe or not. | ||
| You can't freely and privately go out there, and that's based on what our government did. | ||
| In 1946, they brought the Nazis over in 1945. | ||
| Operation Paperclip, 1946. | ||
| Operation Highjump, we went to Antarctica. | ||
| Then we considered Antarctica our number one focus. | ||
| We'll be right back. We'll pick it up with Antarctica on the other side. | ||
| Austin Witson, the debate continues in the next hour. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Stay with us. We're on radio. | |
| This is a radio broadcast on terrestrial radio. | ||
| However that works, we don't know. | ||
| We're not sure. But somehow, we're broadcasting worldwide, flat or globe. | ||
| So we do have to take certain commercial breaks. | ||
| This will be a short segment, then a 60-second break, and we'll be back for two more big chunks. | ||
| We're just going to dedicate this whole hour to continuing this conversation. | ||
| Clearly, we've barely scratched the surface. | ||
| Antarctica. I think there's a lot of suspicious stuff about Antarctica. | ||
| I think that there could be major military operations. | ||
| There could be lost civilizations. There could be fertile land underneath the ice with gaseous air pockets that preserve heat. | ||
| There have been stories like that. | ||
| I've read the accounts of Admiral Byrd and Operation High Jump. | ||
| I get all of that stuff. | ||
| But it ain't an ice wall. | ||
| I mean, it does exist. And, you know, if it was me and I was trying to keep some sort of military operation, some sort of breakaway civilization secret, it would be the greatest gift in the world to have a bunch of my worst enemies, the truthers and conspiracy theorists out there, thinking that it doesn't exist at all, that the idea of Antarctica isn't even real. | ||
| And, I mean, the map doesn't make any sense. | ||
| I mean, just how do you comport this with... | ||
| Everything else. I mean, there's a yacht race around Antarctica, right? | ||
| People have circumnavigated Antarctica. | ||
| It didn't take them as long as it would have taken them to go on the outside ring of a flat Earth. | ||
| So, again, if you're saying Antarctica doesn't exist or is an ice wall or something, I mean, that alone sort of paints a picture of a model because you have to have an ice wall around the outside and the Earth in the center. | ||
| So is that the model that you're going with for flat Earth? | ||
| Yeah, I mean, I'm certainly open to that model. | ||
| I think, again, the whole thing is detaching from making up claims you can't verify just because a bunch of people gave you claims that we can't verify, and so we need to replace them. | ||
| But yes, it could be. It's known to be the highest elevation in the world. | ||
| Just look up pictures of it. | ||
| There is certainly what you could call a wall of ice holding the water in. | ||
| You can't fall off the edge of a lake. | ||
| There are stories of extra land beyond that. | ||
| Actually, Admiral Byrd even seemed to imply that. | ||
| But there could be more land. | ||
| And when it comes to the yacht race allegedly around Antarctica, just look a little deeper. | ||
| And what you will see is that these boats have a top speed. | ||
| It's a race. | ||
| They do the same, a similar race with the same boats in the north. | ||
| And if you compare the top speeds, it's a joke. | ||
| In the South, their top speeds in a race are way slower. | ||
| Right. But it would make sense if they're actually traveling further than they think they are. | ||
| No, no. There's sailboats and the wind pattern is dictated. | ||
| So in places where there's high wind pattern, you know, there's like northern trades, southern trades, like wind generally sticks to suit because of the spin. | ||
| Because of the spinning of the Earth, unfortunately, the weather patterns are fairly predictable, and there's not a strong wind that pushes you around Antarctica, unlike other places where they hold boat races. | ||
| Antarctica is known to be the windiest place on the Earth, and the southern jet streams are actually significantly stronger. | ||
| If you Google what place has the strongest winds on Earth, it will be... | ||
| I think they have the pictures ready as well, if you don't mind if we pop that up, just so people can see what I was saying. | ||
| If you look here, you're going to see that that is a feral cell image of a magnetic field, that orange picture. | ||
| If you take the planets, they all fit right within that, in little different portions of it. | ||
| They do, though. They literally do. | ||
| I've actually overlaid them and transitioned them. | ||
| They all fit perfectly within a feral cell image. | ||
| And then the other image is going to show you the magnetic flux data on the Earth on a plane, which conveniently once... | ||
| They actually took this off the main website. | ||
| They took the azimethyl projection off once people found it. | ||
| And we had to make our own. | ||
| It's a perfect Taurus. | ||
| It's a vortex, just like in the magnetic field. | ||
| And then that white line through the middle of that bottom right picture there is called a block domain wall. | ||
| It's a plane, meaning we do live in a Taurus field, even in the globe model. | ||
| They have to admit this, right? | ||
| And there's always a plane through the center of it. | ||
| and that's where you reside is on the plane we can't go beneath that right and neither can anyone that believes in the globe so just to clarify that not to necessarily bring it back but um it perfectly explains where we are explains containment it explains the motions a Lorentz magnetic force and it's all way way more viable than the other model like Yeah, not really. We'll be back in about 60 seconds. | ||
| We'll continue this conversation. | ||
| We'll overlay those pictures and see if they match. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't know what the crew's up to. | |
| They're getting creative with us. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't know what this is. | |
| In the world of unfettered discourse, a stirring debate is on the horizon. | ||
| The age-old question of the Earth's shapes, surface, and the challenging cosmos of conventional thought. | ||
| I can't read this quickly. | ||
| As the galaxy watches, these two formidable forces clash under the watchful eyes of millions, seeking to uncover the truth that is shrouded in mystery. | ||
| Yes, folks, this is The Star War. | ||
| This is the American Journal, InfoWars.com, Bands.video. | ||
| I'm your host, Harrison Smith. My guest is Austin Witsit. | ||
| Witsit gets it on X, at Witsit gets it, and his website, Witsitgetsit.com. | ||
| And, of course, he's done this debate many times. | ||
| This is my first to go, but I've watched many of your debates, and I have to tell you, some are infuriating, some are extremely entertaining, and I'm always torn in the middle because the flat-earth people, I always like more. | ||
| Personally, but I just don't think they're right. | ||
| I'm torn by this. | ||
| But let's talk about some of the other issues that I see constantly brought up, like some of the main arguments for Flat Earth in favor of Flat Earth. | ||
| Things like the curvature, seeing over the horizon, air next to a vacuum. | ||
| I mean, these things I see brought up over and over, but they really don't seem that complicated to me. | ||
| For example, being able to see over the horizon. | ||
| I think you brought that up in your opening. | ||
| The issue is not that you can occasionally see in certain circumstances and under certain conditions, you can see farther than maybe mathematically, geometrically, using platonic solids you should seemingly be able to see. | ||
| That's not the issue, that you have occasional times where you can see farther than you think you should be able to. | ||
| The issue is that if the Earth was flat, you should always be able to see significantly farther than we can. | ||
| I mean, how is it that on a flat Earth model, you can't see things thousands of miles away, hundreds of miles away, or even just tens of miles away on a normal day? | ||
| I mean, what would explain that other than the curvature of the Earth? | ||
| Yeah, that's a good question. | ||
| So there's something called attenuation. | ||
| So light is absorbed into a medium, right? | ||
| That's why you can't see the Hollywood sign from just a few miles away. | ||
| I don't encourage anyone going and trying that. | ||
| Just take my word for it. Stay out of there. | ||
| But anyway... | ||
| My point is, you can't see forever, right? | ||
| The opacity of the Atmos. | ||
| There's actually a very famous observation of the Kanegu Mountains from hundreds of miles away, and you can't see them until the sun sets behind the mountains. | ||
| And then because that light is so much brighter and you have the contrast of the shadow of the mountains, you can see them. | ||
| And they should be miles below the curvature of the Earth. | ||
| So even in the globe paradigm, why can't we see the mountains before that? | ||
| Well, it's because the atmost between us and the mountains are blocking the light. | ||
| It's being absorbed until you had a bright enough light to see it. | ||
| So it's pretty simple. | ||
| We wouldn't see forever on a flat Earth. | ||
| That's a misconception. Okay, but we would be able to see significantly further than we can. | ||
| I mean, the average view distance for the horizon is like two or three miles, right? | ||
| But when I fly on a plane, planes typically fly at about six to eight miles off the surface of the planet. | ||
| I can look down. I'm looking through atmosphere, and I can see the ground perfectly well. | ||
| So how is it that our view distance isn't at least six or eight miles, since I know from my own personal experience that I can see through the atmosphere for six to eight miles when I'm in a plane? | ||
| Well, first of all, we see way further than six to eight miles, right? | ||
| I mean, it's not that sometimes we see too far. | ||
| It's that almost every day you're going to see too far. | ||
| The globe model actually says that on average, you see at least 15 to 20% too far. | ||
| That's the average. But on a plane, you're looking straight down vertically through the Atmos, right? | ||
| And we have like density layers. | ||
| So looking out horizontally through it, Certainly closer to the surface is going to be way more compounding, denser medium that's going to block your light. | ||
| So it's not the same as looking straight down through it. | ||
| I will say also my boy Jaren, he went and made an observation in California like a week ago, and no one could see the mountains. | ||
| They were 75 miles away. | ||
| They were 75 feet up. | ||
| They should have been blocked by hundreds and hundreds of feet of earth curvature. | ||
| No one could see them. So one might clap their hands and say, look, the Earth's a globe. | ||
| We can't see the mountains. But then they pulled out their infrared camera and they could see the mountains. | ||
| So what that proves, even if you thought the Earth was a globe, is that the atmosphere is actually blocking the mountains. | ||
| The light from the mountains, you can't see them until you put out infrared, which cuts through a lot of the haze. | ||
| It only has a small spectrum of light, a longer wavelength of light, and you're able to see it with less obstruction. | ||
| That's pretty simple. Also, this picture they're showing right here is also not proof that the Earth's a globe, because if you look at the same shadow in a plane, you'll actually see that it's out parallel below you, and it's merely a perspective thing. | ||
| Okay, but where's the sun in that picture? | ||
| I mean, and you even said the sun sets below the mountains in the last example that you used, but that doesn't make sense. | ||
| I mean, the sun doesn't set on a flat Earth model. | ||
| It just moves away from you, right? | ||
| Well, it moves away from you and then looks like it's going down. | ||
| Just like if you see a plane flying towards you, it looks like it's going up. | ||
| Then as it flies away, it looks like it's going down. | ||
| Or if you look down a long street, you'll see streetlights look like they're going down. | ||
| They're all the same height, though, right? | ||
| It's just perspective. The same reason that a hallway converges. | ||
| The sun does the same thing. | ||
| And actually, we have many observations of the sun disappearing above the horizon. | ||
| So the sunset happens above the horizon. | ||
| So that actually perfectly matches... | ||
| Plain Earth. The sun is just small, local, moving away from us. | ||
| Looks like it's going down and then disappears into the distance. | ||
| But on a globe, it should always be going behind the physical, curved horizon. | ||
| We see the sun disappear above the horizon. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, yep. Not any sunsets I've seen. | |
| I see a disappear below the horizon. | ||
| But, I mean, look, if the table, if, you know, this tabletop is the Earth, I mean, it doesn't matter how far away the sun gets. | ||
| If I'm on the tabletop and the sun is above it, I should be able to see it. | ||
| Unless the sun is a, like, a stage... | ||
| Right, like a spotlight, a shielded spotlight where I'm blocking perpendicular view. | ||
| I mean, if the sun is a ball or even if it's just a disc, I should be able to see it. | ||
| No matter how far away it gets, I'll still be able to see it. | ||
| There's no illusion where the sun drops. | ||
| I mean, it's pretty clear the sun drops... | ||
| Behind the Earth and then disappears for like 12 hours and then comes up on the other side. | ||
| I mean, again, this is just observation, but it perfectly comports with the round Earth model. | ||
| I do not see an explanation for this in the flat Earth model. | ||
| Well, so for one, it actually doesn't, right? | ||
| They say that when the sun sets, it actually was below the curve of the Earth for multiple minutes. | ||
| Right. Because light bends, yeah. | ||
| Yeah, so just another illusion that's convenient, right? | ||
| But fine, yeah, sure, light could bend. | ||
| It's not really... How do you explain sunsets? | ||
| How do you explain the colors of sunsets without a round... | ||
| Because in the round Earth, it's pretty simple, right? | ||
| The lower it goes, the more layers of atmosphere it's going through. | ||
| Certain light frequencies are blocked by it. | ||
| Other light, as you point out, like infrared will break through. | ||
| So you've got these spectacular colors because they're the... | ||
| Whatever, higher or lower frequency that break through the atmosphere. | ||
| I mean, how do you explain sunsets having colors if the Earth is just moving away from us? | ||
| I mean, there is no physical explanation for that like there is in the round Earth. | ||
| Yeah, of course there is. | ||
| You're looking at the sun, the source of light, through the most dense layers of the Atmos, even though it's above you, which mind you, it's 93 million miles away on the globe, far above the Atmos, right? | ||
| You're looking at an angle that goes through the Atmos. | ||
| So you're seeing it through all of those layers of air. | ||
| It's just like how if the streetlights were going down the street, I could put my thumb up and block them. | ||
| I could see a shadow relative to that. | ||
| It would look like the streetlights are below my thumb. | ||
| I could put a two foot trash can on the ground and see the streetlights that are 10 feet tall look like they're below the trash can. | ||
| Just based on perspective, you would be looking through the horizontal atmos since perspective is having you look down at where the sun is. | ||
| You're going to see that light through that. | ||
| The sun often gets bigger as it passes, as it goes to set. | ||
| I mean, it doesn't get smaller. It's not a diminution to nothingness, right? | ||
| The idea that if it's just moving away, it should just get smaller and smaller and smaller. | ||
| When it goes to the atmosphere, often the atmospheric lensing makes it appear as though, if anything, it grows bigger, but usually it just looks like it stays the same. | ||
| And again, atmospheric lensing or refraction explains... | ||
| Pretty much all of this, like the idea that you can see farther than you think technically you should be able to. | ||
| That's because, yeah, the Earth's atmosphere bends the light. | ||
| I mean, light bends. Everybody knows this. | ||
| This is why I can talk to you through a camera lens, right? | ||
| Because the lens itself is bending the light. | ||
| That's why, I mean, so the light bends with the atmosphere, and so it goes farther than you think it should be able to. | ||
| Well, that's different, though. That's two different media, right? | ||
| So you have the lens and you have the air. | ||
| It's two different mediums, it's called Snell's Law, which is two different mediums, but not a singular one. | ||
| Now, it's not that light can't be displaced within a medium, it's just that that's an unfalsifiable claim. | ||
| They claim that light can be infinitely bent around the globe. | ||
| You could see the back of your head, if you wanted to, that there's no limit to it, which makes it unfalsifiable. | ||
| But sure, you can say that. | ||
| But there are certain observations we've made that falsify the refraction claim. | ||
| And without refraction, the entire globe falls apart. | ||
| For example, I had an Air Force pilot reach out to me and has chosen to remain anonymous for pretty obvious reasons, verified him for sure, Air Force pilot. | ||
| And he told me that he saw the K-2 mountain range from 300 nautical miles away, and he was flying at 28,000 feet altitude, and the elevation of those mountains are at 28,000 feet. | ||
| And he saw the mountains level with him as he actually did target acquirement, establishing the landmark with his manual viewing pod. | ||
| He saw the mountains level with him from 300 miles away. | ||
| It should be like up to five degrees below you on a globe, right? | ||
| Because even though they're the same height, it's obviously on a globe. | ||
| But it was level with him. | ||
| And like at that height, you can't even invoke refraction, admittedly, because it's so high. | ||
| It's like the much thinner portion of the Atmos. | ||
| And, of course, it doesn't even go five degrees anyway. | ||
| And that's what woke him up. | ||
| The flat earth was his experience in the Air Force. | ||
| And I've never heard a rebuttal to that. | ||
| Most people just claim the guy doesn't exist or he must be lying. | ||
| Well, he certainly exists because I verified it. | ||
| So if you see what I'm saying, he saw the mountains 300 miles away and they were level with him. | ||
| But he saw it from an extremely elevated position and the mountains themselves are elevated. | ||
| I mean, we're not talking about a guy saying something 300 miles away from ground level. | ||
| So, you know, again, you know, there are certain circumstances, certain conditions of the atmosphere where you can get things like that. | ||
| I mean, everybody knows. I mean, rainbows are an illusion. | ||
| Mirages are an illusion. Like, there are certain things that the atmosphere does to light that is dazzling or baffling to the human eye. | ||
| But that, again, we would be able to see every mountain. | ||
| From 300 miles away, if the Earth was flat, seeing it, you know, in one circumstance doesn't prove anything. | ||
| And we had a pilot who called in yesterday talking about flying at night and seeing the glow of cities from about, I think you said about 100 miles away, and then slowly you see the glow of the city rise up. | ||
| I mean, hell, even when I was driving into Austin from the Renaissance Fair last weekend, the first thing I saw of Austin was the top of the skyscrapers. | ||
| I mean, it's just everyday observations. | ||
| You can see that the... | ||
| The globe exists, that there's a curvature and that things disappear over the edge of it. | ||
| I think that's kind of the big part here, is that there's just typically a misunderstanding of the flat Earth position or what it actually has adequate explanations for. | ||
| Like, seeing things disappear bottom-up would be what happens on a plane Earth. | ||
| You have the ground ramp up. | ||
| But just to clarify what is wrong with the observation in the plane, It's not that they're so far away you shouldn't see them, because you're right. | ||
| He's super high in the air, right? | ||
| So you're looking up from higher on the globe, and you can see further the higher you are, whether the Earth is flat or whether it's a globe. | ||
| The problem is that they were level with him. | ||
| They should have been five degrees below his level, his plane's level. | ||
| They should have been five degrees below that. | ||
| They were level with him. | ||
| That's a ton when you're talking about a military fighter jet establishing target acquirement or looking at the landmark. | ||
| Five degrees is a ton in the Air Force. | ||
| And mind you, I mean, I'm not an Air Force pilot. | ||
| I just listened to him. | ||
| He broke it all down, showed me everything. | ||
| He said that there's not a pilot in the world. | ||
| There's not an Air Force pilot in the world that would tell you that five degrees is some type of acceptable range of error, right? | ||
| So yeah, and honestly, like I said, I talked to kind of the top guys that defend the globe. | ||
| They all just say this can't be true or it would absolutely refute the globe. | ||
| Well, he did it. | ||
| So it was level with them. | ||
| Yeah, I mean, without proof, you can take his word for it. | ||
| But again, I don't think that one anecdote disproves all of the things that were talked about. | ||
| And again, attenuation can go some way to explain some aspect of things like why the sky is blue or why sunsets are multicolored. | ||
| But it doesn't explain why the sun disappears completely at night. | ||
| That's not explained by attenuation. | ||
| Attenuation is just the diminution of light as it passes through an atmosphere. | ||
| It doesn't make things completely disappear in the way that we see the sun just obviously go behind the horizon. | ||
| And I do want to look at a couple other pictures here. | ||
| I know you're familiar with it, but I haven't heard your response to it. | ||
| Things like the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway, if the crew can bring this up, where... | ||
| I mean, unless I'm missing something, it very clearly... | ||
| So this is the longest bridge in the world for a while. | ||
| I think there may be a longer one now, but Lake Pontchartrain, just outside of New Orleans, this bridge is leveled to the surface of the water, but you can see a very clear curve as it diminishes over the horizon. | ||
| So this was taken, I think, from about 15 stories up with an extreme zoom lens. | ||
| That's why everything is compacted. | ||
| That's why those bridges or the humps look so dramatic. | ||
| Really, they're pretty, you know, your typical... | ||
| So that's just an effect of the massive optical zoom lens. | ||
| But I mean, clearly it goes over the horizon. | ||
| And there's other pictures like this. | ||
| I mean, why would it look like this if the Earth was flat? | ||
| Yeah. So, and just to throw out, I did drop about, I just really quickly dropped like five other pictures of Pontchartrain that we should pull up because this is not what you see when you look at the whole bridge. | ||
| It's insanely flat. | ||
| But I will point out a few things about this. | ||
| This is an older argument from around 2015. | ||
| It's kind of become a meme, actually. | ||
| And most Glovers have abandoned it because if that's the curvature of the Earth, the Earth has to be like a fraction of the size they claim it is. | ||
| It would have to be a tiny, tiny, tiny globe Earth for that to be the curve of the Earth. | ||
| Way smaller than 4,000 miles. | ||
| It's a 100-mile radius globe, right? | ||
| It's way too drastic a rate of curvature over that distance. | ||
| In addition, it's a foreshortening effect based on optics in the Atmos, which that place notoriously has pretty crazy atmospheric conditions and pollution and stuff. | ||
| And we've replicated a flat surface. | ||
| You put enough of an atmospheric temperature fluctuation and stuff, it'll start to warp it, compress it, and make it look like it's curving, also based on your angle. | ||
| You can take a picture. | ||
| It's so deceptive. | ||
| You can take a picture of a desk and it gets flat. | ||
| Hold on, Austin. We have a guest appearance here. | ||
| Alex Jones has made his appearance at the Flat Earth Debate. | ||
| Listen, I'm only going to ask you a real quick question. | ||
| Are the sun and other planets flat as well? | ||
| Because I've been a big astronomer since I was a kid with my dad when we had professional telescopes when I was a kid. | ||
| Now anybody can get them to have the computerized controls. | ||
| I've sat there overnight drinking a 12-pack of beer in college with a 35-millimeter camera hooked to a 12-inch refractor telescope. | ||
| And taking photos of Saturn and Jupiter and watched it as it's turning. | ||
| Watch the globes turning. | ||
| I put green lenses on the telescope and could watch the sun and over an hour see it turn and see coronal mass ejections moving in the time lapse. | ||
| Boom! It's round. | ||
| Done. Debate over, Austin. | ||
| I'm sorry to tell you you have now lost the debate and the Earth is round. | ||
| What's your response to what Alex just brought up there? | ||
| Yeah, the sun could be round, and it doesn't mean that the Earth is, right? | ||
| And also, by the way, the Earth can be round and flat. | ||
| Of course, it could be a plane shape. | ||
| It could be a plane circle. | ||
| But yeah, I mean, I agree that they look like they could be spheres. | ||
| They certainly look like disks in the sky. | ||
| They have cycles, but they all move around the earth. | ||
| The earth's in the center, right? | ||
| It is illogical to look at the ceiling and be like, "Well, that's what the earth is." - Right, but again, you can plot the paths of the planet from the earth and you can predict them and everything, but it makes so much more sense when you take the sun as the center, everything's in a perfect little circle. | ||
| Everything's concentric. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than trying to plot things from a geocentric, which, I mean, how do you explain the way that the planets move in and then away from us and then towards us and away from us? | ||
| I mean, you can say Taurus field, but frankly, it's just not a good enough explanation. | ||
| It's a magnetic force, right? | ||
| Magnetic. There's a book by a PhD professor that is called Relational Mechanics. | ||
| He breaks all this down. The specific force, Lorentz Magnetic Force, shows the dynamic equivalence of the planetary motion from a stationary position. | ||
| Relational Mechanics, André Assis, and there are many other papers like that exist. | ||
| The ironic part is it actually works better. | ||
| This is where I, like, it works way better. | ||
| You don't need dark matter. You don't need dark energy. | ||
| You don't need expansion. You don't need all these made-up pseudoscience fairy tales. | ||
| Gravity's been disproven. | ||
| Everyone knows relativity doesn't even work. | ||
| We don't have something better. What do you mean gravity's been disproven? | ||
| I mean gravity exists, right? | ||
| The theory of relativity. The theory of relativity has been disproven just like Newtonian gravity was disproven before that. | ||
| Right, so these are refinements of theories to explain natural phenomenon, but gravity exists, right? | ||
| And it's different than electrostatic attraction, it's different than magnetic attraction, it's something else, right? | ||
| No, I wouldn't say it's... | ||
| Well, okay, it's the effect of things falling to the earth, right? | ||
| And it's little g, gravity. | ||
| Of course it exists. We use it for engineering. | ||
| We use it to determine weight. Of course it 100% exists. | ||
| But why? | ||
| What is it? Is there a force pulling everything down to the earth? | ||
| Well, that's what the globe needs. | ||
| The evidence for gravity is the way that it's been defined, is that, well, the Earth can't be a globe without it. | ||
| But no, actually, density causes things to go up and down and electrostatics. | ||
| Wait, wait, wait. Why does density cause things to go up and down? | ||
| Because of buoyancy, so the relative density of the object with the medium, the pressure mediation causes it to go up or down like a ping-pong ball floats in water, a golf ball. | ||
| Because of gravity, because buoyancy is an effect of gravity, because without gravity, there'd be no reason for it to go up or down. | ||
| Wait, wait, wait, wait, we gotta, okay, so the principle of density, right, long predates the idea of gravity, but eventually we did throw a little g in there. | ||
| Like I'm saying, little g isn't a problem for flat Earth at all. | ||
| It's just the downward acceleration. | ||
| Little g is not the cause, it's the effect. | ||
| Everyone knows the effect exists. | ||
| Things go down when they have weight. | ||
| Gravity, gravitas, means heavy. | ||
| How heavy something is, weight. | ||
| We don't dispute that. We dispute the claimed cause of gravity. | ||
| That the bending and warping of concepts called space and time somehow create illusions where everything shrinks and slows down and makes things fall to the earth in a straight path that's curving at the same time. | ||
| That's just all pseudoscience. | ||
| I actually did a... I want to plug the Level documentary. | ||
| I did a test there where we did actual science. | ||
| And I used a Van de Graaff generator, which manipulates electrostatics, and I made the object change weight, fall at a different rate, go up and down just by manipulating the electric field, and that's what we have on the Earth. | ||
| We have an electric field that has a 100 volt per meter increase, and when I flipped it with my Van de Graaff generator, it made the object float. | ||
| So I proved that that's a cause of things falling down and why they fall down, and that every object that exists is electrostatic. | ||
| I mean, there's just so many things wrong with that. | ||
| Obviously, it's not buoyancy. | ||
| Buoyancy only exists because of gravity. | ||
| If you had a tank of water out in space where there's no noticeable gravitational force, then you could put a beach ball in the center of the water. | ||
| It would stay in the center of water. | ||
| There would be no up for it to float to. | ||
| So buoyancy is an effect of the gravitational pull of the Earth. | ||
| Gravity is obviously not electrostatic. | ||
| You can... You can counteract gravity with forces, obviously. | ||
| I can counteract gravity by picking this up. | ||
| That doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist. | ||
| You can't affect gravity itself with electrostatic or electromagnetism. | ||
| You can't block gravity with a lead wall, right? | ||
| Nothing blocks gravity. | ||
| So, I mean, it's just obviously not electrostatic or magnetic or any other force that we can manipulate because we can't manipulate gravity. | ||
| Except, you know, they probably can with the Bell experiment and other, you know, secret technology that they have. | ||
| That we all know they have. We'll be back on the other side, one more long chunk of this debate, and we'll get into the PSYOP aspect. | ||
|
unidentified
|
All right, folks. | |
| Well, B.O.B. to bring us in. | ||
|
unidentified
|
He started this whole conundrum. | |
| I thought that was appropriate. | ||
| One of my favorite songs, actually. | ||
| I love this song. Austin Witsit is my guest at Witsit Gets It on X. Witsitgetsit.com is his website you can go to. | ||
| We've covered a lot of topics here. | ||
| There's really only one more that I hear brought up quite a bit that I'd like to get into, and then I want to get into the aspects of the conspiracy that would be necessary to contain this lie if the round earth is in fact a lie. | ||
| But let's talk about sort of one of the other claims of the Earth's atmosphere existing next to a vacuum. | ||
| Again, this seems on first blush, it's like, oh, yeah, wait, why does that happen? | ||
| How is that the case? We've got an atmosphere here. | ||
| We've got a vacuum in space. | ||
| What is it that stops the atmosphere from going into the vacuum of space? | ||
| But it's, I mean, we get the pressure goes down as we travel up in altitude, right? | ||
| We get that the atmosphere gets thinner as it goes up. | ||
| I mean, I don't think you dispute that. | ||
| So, I mean, that makes perfect sense to me. | ||
| I know, you know, you say that to have air pressure, you have to have a container. | ||
| But are there containers that are pressurized where there's a gradient? | ||
| Because there's a gradient in our atmosphere that pretty well explains how the atmosphere sticks to Earth. | ||
| It's gravity. It doesn't require a container. | ||
| It requires a force. And in this case, that force is gravity. | ||
| Yeah, sure. So you can have a gradient. | ||
| Of course, but you need gas pressure to have a gradient. | ||
| So it's delta X changing to X. So you need X. You need the gas pressure. | ||
| And what we're saying is the antecedent, the requirement for gas pressure is containment. | ||
| You can absolutely replicate a pressure gradient in a container. | ||
| You cannot replicate one without a container. | ||
| And we see that the dispersal of gas is omnidirectional. | ||
| It goes directly up in the face of this alleged force that's not a force that's pulling everything down. | ||
| Supposedly, gravity is holding air, gas, next to a vacuum, but gas disperses in all directions instantly. | ||
| So yes, we do have a pressure gradient on the Earth, but the requirement for that is an actual contained system that the gas can then begin to attempt to equalize within and give you a gradient. | ||
| Just like if you have liquid propane or any type of gas, not liquid, but any type of gas in the container, there's going to be a gradient. | ||
| There's going to be more gas at the bottom confined within that. | ||
| But it's in a container. | ||
| So as soon as I remove the container, it's going to disperse. | ||
| Obviously, that's why sodas make the little... | ||
| Sound, right? Because the pressure is equalizing to the pressure around it. | ||
| So that's our point, is that you can say gravity, but where gravity is supposedly the strongest at the surface of the Earth, gas goes in all directions, including directly up, and it goes directly into a vacuum. | ||
| Gravity is not holding it down there, but supposedly where gravity is weaker, next to a 10 to the negative 17 torr vacuum, somehow it just sits there and it doesn't go and fill the available space, which is antithetical to, you know, Well, it's just a countervailing force. | ||
| I mean, if you have a molecule of air that floats up to the top of the atmosphere and then floats out of the atmosphere and now it's not surrounded by anything, for all intents and purposes, in a vacuum, it's still being affected by the gravity of Earth and it'll drift back to Earth. | ||
| I mean, what is the force that's pulling it away from the other air molecules in a vacuum? | ||
| I mean, again, this really doesn't seem all that complicated to me. | ||
| me I mean the the gravity pulls the air down the air you know close to the surface of the planet is thicker because that's where gravity is pulling everything but you know air is light enough to float because of buoyancy or or density it it doesn't all fall straight down to the earth this is just an effect of gravity of Again, you don't need a container to explain this. | ||
| You just need a force that is working on the molecules to keep them attached to Earth, right? | ||
| I mean, again, I don't get how this is... | ||
| A container is not necessary. | ||
| Like I said, though, we're claiming a force is pulling the gas down to Earth, but gas goes in all directions, including directly up and violently. | ||
| It's the second law of thermodynamics. | ||
| To quote Arthur Eddington, any idea or theory you have that's contrary to the second law is just completely inexcusable and dead on its face. | ||
| But you're saying that the gravity is basically pulling the air back down in the face of a vacuum. | ||
| But where does the gravity of Earth stop affecting Because the gravity of the Earth doesn't extend the entire universe, and so the air is still going to fill the available space, and it fills the available space on the surface where gravity would be the strongest. | ||
| So very simply, it's very easy to replicate what we have on the Earth. | ||
| With a container, you can create a gradient, certainly with all the gas that's been introduced to the surface level and the gas cycle and the temperature and the density differences, but you cannot replicate it without a container. | ||
| So that's the argument. | ||
| And gravity, again, has actually been disproven. | ||
| And we've proven our understanding of gravity, which is that it's electric. | ||
| We've actually proven it with experiments. | ||
| So you can affect gravity with electricity? | ||
| What people call gravity, which is the effect of things falling down, right? | ||
| Yeah, I can take electrostatics and I can make things go up. | ||
| And actually, when you brought up the bell, that's what they did. | ||
| They actually used what they call ether physics. | ||
| I have a really good book on it. | ||
| It's called The Bell. And they used electrogravitic propulsion. | ||
| So, you know, of course the Nazis, back in like as early as the 20s and 30s, they had these UFOs. | ||
| They were using the electric nature of the environment to make things quote-unquote levitate and defy material physics. | ||
| They weren't using an anti-gravity device that bits space and time. | ||
| It was electro-gravity propulsion. | ||
| They actually... | ||
| They called Einstein's theory mysticism, and they applied what they called ether physics. | ||
| That's been hidden and suppressed. | ||
| They went in and grabbed all of Tesla's work, and now they say that Einstein is correct. | ||
| And of course, we have no technology. | ||
| All the technology the military is using for these devices, I guarantee you, is electric. | ||
| Because, like I said, in science, you have a naturally occurring observable phenomena, dependent variable. | ||
| You try to figure out what causes it. | ||
| So things fall down. What causes it? | ||
| Well, let's say it's electrostatics. | ||
| Let's test it. We're going to manipulate that. | ||
| I did that, and I can make the object go up and float. | ||
| I can make it fall down faster. | ||
| And on the Earth, we have an electric field, and everything that exists is electrostatic. | ||
| Everything's electric. So it would be insane to think that it doesn't have something to do with everything being electric, because that's 10 to the 36th power stronger than gravity's even claimed to be on the smallest scale. | ||
| So it's one of the biggest... | ||
| Right, but that doesn't disprove gravity. | ||
| Again, you know, electric currents have, or electric, they have properties that gravity doesn't have, so it just can't be the same thing. | ||
| And you can't block it, you can't really affect it. | ||
| I mean, there may be hidden technology like the Bell that are able to manipulate gravity, but they're not doing it in a way that is easily replicable, I don't think. | ||
| And yeah, again, you can counteract the force of gravity, but I don't think you can actually, I think that might be an illusion of what's happening there. | ||
| But all of this to the side. | ||
| All of the perception versus reality or what we can see and what explains it. | ||
| The conspiracy necessary to keep this lie going. | ||
| If Round Earth was a lie... | ||
| It is so impossibly vast. | ||
| I mean, it just makes no sense. | ||
| There's no payoff for it other than maybe moderately affecting people's willingness to believe. | ||
| Which again, it's like, you know, the idea that we're in a firmament or that we're the center of the earth. | ||
| I mean, nothing in God's creation exists. | ||
| You know, proves God. | ||
| That's sort of like one of the aspects of it, right? | ||
| There are lots of things that could prove God that would be miraculous that you could go, oh my, there's nothing other than God that explains this. | ||
| Yeah, Earth being at the center of the universe would be one of those things, but it's not because it's not, right? | ||
| It's not the center of the Earth, so it doesn't prove that. | ||
| But nothing in creation proves that. | ||
| So this idea that, you know, I guess it's almost like... | ||
| We're like, yeah, if we were in a giant celestial hamster cage with the firmament over us, it would prove that God exists, but also in a weird way, that's not what God does. | ||
| So it would prove that something other than God exists. | ||
| That doesn't make any sense to me. | ||
| And then you've got just tens of thousands of people working on space programs. | ||
| Let me give an example. I have a friend about 10 years ago, he was working for a company that built the titanium aluminum rings that connected satellites to the vessel that took them into space. | ||
| So you've got a small company with about four or five Ivy League doctorate engineers that are working on building these rings to attach the satellite to the rocket. | ||
| And that's just one company of like thousands that exist out there. | ||
| Are they in on it? | ||
| Are they being fooled? | ||
| Do you have another company that's coming up with the false information to feed to them, to make them think that when they go to watch the satellite launch, are they just watching the thing they built fly into the sea and then somebody else is launching a balloon that just looks like a satellite? | ||
| I mean, explain some of this to me because the conspiracy necessary to carry this out is so vast, it's just nonsensical. | ||
| Yeah, so it would be, like I said, to use the adoption analogy, be like, is everyone in the church, in your school, in your community in on the lie? | ||
| Like, no, they believe the lie. | ||
| Satellites aren't a problem for Flat Earth. | ||
| I know that many Flat Earthers will say that, you know, they don't necessarily believe in them and that they think there's a lot of balloons. | ||
| And there is a classified, very, very advanced balloon project that is going on, and it is conducting a massive surveillance on the public. | ||
| This is just a fact. | ||
| Like immense fleets of military surveillance balloons. | ||
| And NASA is the number one purchaser of helium in the world, and this is true. | ||
| But satellites are not a problem for flat Earth. | ||
| That's just a belief that it is, but it's not. | ||
| Actually, the satellite equations use geocentric physics and equations. | ||
| They use real inertial forces as if the Earth is stationary in what's called an Earth-centered, Earth-fixed frame or an ECI, Earth-centered inertial frame. | ||
| And it's not to get all into the technical aspects. | ||
| Satellites are not exclusive at all to a globe Earth or a moving Earth. | ||
| In fact, it's exclusive to a stationary Earth based on the physics and equations they use, and then for it to be on a plane Earth, it would just be an ellipse. | ||
| But to answer your question precisely— Wait, wait, wait. | ||
| Hold on, hold on. | ||
| It would be an ellipse? | ||
| I mean, what does that mean? So satellites are—satellites exist. | ||
| They're floating above us, above the atmosphere, but they're just continually circling a plane? | ||
| Yeah, they certainly could be, right? | ||
| I've seen Starlink myself. | ||
| I've watched launches myself. | ||
| I know that there's what people call Starlinks in the sky. | ||
| It's not a problem at all because it's just a coordinate system transformed from a globe to a plane, and the actual physics and equation treat the Earth as if it's stationary. | ||
| That should be significant because it's not just, oh, it's a coordinate system, you can treat it like that because it's from the Earth. | ||
| No, it's using physics in the equations and specifically inertial forces, which do not exist in the relativistic flow model, which means if the satellites are up there and they are working, if they're proof of anything, to quote PhD astronomer Gerardus Bao, It's proof that the Earth is stationary and the universe is geocentric. | ||
| But those people that made the pieces aren't— See, that's a completely fallacious extrapolation. | ||
| I mean, so ECI, right? | ||
| Earth-centered inertial coordinates versus ECEF. Something like that, Earth-centered, Earth-fixed, right? | ||
| So both of these are coordinate systems for a spherical Earth. | ||
| The only difference is one of them takes the spin of the Earth into account while the other one doesn't. | ||
| First of all, it requires a spherical Earth, first of all, for these coordinates to make any sense. | ||
| They also take into account the spinning of the Earth, meaning it's not stationary. | ||
| One of them doesn't take into account the spinning of the Earth, but it's not because it's not spinning. | ||
| It's just because that's not the The coordinate system just doesn't rely on the spinning of the Earth. | ||
| And regardless of any outcome of those, that has nothing to do with whether the Sun is circling the Earth. | ||
| It's about satellites. Yeah, I'm not talking about the Sun. | ||
| I'm saying that the actual physics— You said geocentric universe. | ||
| Well, yeah, I'm saying that's because they use forces of a rotating universe. | ||
| They actually treat the universe as if it's rotating and creating real inertial forces, specifically centrifugal, Coriolis, and Euler forces. | ||
| And in the globe model, those are fictitious forces, they're not real. | ||
| In a stationary Earth model, the universe is actually rotating around the Earth, creating angular momentum. | ||
| Satellites would be using that on a stationary Earth. | ||
| Well, that's what the physics and equations show. | ||
| They treat it as if the universe is rotating around the Earth, creating a real force, and they have to account for them to put the satellites up. | ||
| And then on a plane, you're right, that is a globe, but on a plane, that's just a coordinate system transform. | ||
| It becomes an ellipse. And it takes the same flower of life geometry I showed earlier. | ||
| Actually, one of those depictions was the ISS path, right? | ||
| And that's just mapped out on a plane. | ||
| But continual motion would, in that case, I mean, with... | ||
| With an orbit, you know, either continual motion is a consequence of just the fact that there's no wind resistance, and so once your initial velocity basically will be maintained with a little bit of, you know, variance because of the tiny amount of atmosphere that does exist outside of what we consider the atmosphere, the 62-mile delineation, which is not a scientific delineation. | ||
| It's an aeronautical delineation determining whether or not you can fly using conventional methods or whether you need rocket propulsion. | ||
| You can continue, you can have inertia that exists that can continually rocket something around the Earth without additional input, but if something's just floating above a plane, it either needs to be pushed in a way that... | ||
| That's continually being pushed, but even if not, it would need something to change its direction. | ||
| I mean, how do you explain that? | ||
| Satellites just floating above us and in ellipses, you would need external forces that would require fuel. | ||
| That would be pretty obvious to the people building the satellite, right? | ||
| Like I said, they use the actual force of the universe rotating around the Earth in the physics and equations. | ||
| And so on a stationary Earth, that's it. | ||
| Instead of the Earth spinning, making the illusion that the sky spins, right? | ||
| It's actually the sky spinning around the Earth like we observe. | ||
| That would generate a real force. | ||
| It would have angular momentum, and there would be a net inward force. | ||
| So if you threw something up in it, it would just continually move around with the universe's momentum, the actual angular momentum and force of the universe. | ||
| And what I'm pointing out is that's literally the physics and equations that they use. | ||
|
unidentified
|
But you're still describing a spherical Earth. | |
| Well, that's why I point out that the end of it, because that actually is a major problem for heliocentrism. | ||
| But the plane is just a coordinate system transform. | ||
| You could think you're going around a globe, and it would just be an ellipse over a plane, and you would have no idea. | ||
| They actually account for a change in velocity, which makes perfect sense with an ellipse, but in the globe model, it's supposedly free-falling in a geodesic path, not changing velocity, yet they actually do account for change in velocity and a change in the speed of light for the signals for GPS. So what they're actually doing and accounting for doesn't work with the model. | ||
| It's just overlooked. | ||
| People assume it. I wanted to address what you were asking though, the meta here, which is like, are these people in on it? | ||
| No, of course not, bro. | ||
| They think the URSA globe, they think we just use these coordinates No, no, | ||
| no. That's not how compartmentalization works. | ||
| I mean, compartmentalization is an aspect of, like, the military and secret operations. | ||
| The people who are compartmentalized know they're compartmentalized. | ||
| The people who are building satellites are in communication with the people building the other parts of the satellite, and they observe it as it flies, and then they get readings, you know, data readings to determine whether or not the mission was successful. | ||
| So they would have to be fed fake information, or, like, what happens is... | ||
| I mean, they think they're launching a satellite into orbit. | ||
| Are they not? | ||
| Or is there a parallel industry that's doing the real math and feeding them the fake information? | ||
| I mean, you get this whole thing just sort of falls apart the more you think about it. | ||
| And that's not even getting into the secrecy aspect where you'd have to, again, either have these people who are doing this for decades without even either noticing that something is wrong or admitting or, you know, letting it leak out that something is wrong. | ||
| The scale of conspiracy, especially now with all of these private companies going into space, is so vast. | ||
| And again, nonsensical, man. | ||
| Man, if I was the mastermind, the Jesuit priest that figured out that there's a firmament and wants to trick everybody, the last thing I would do would be come up with a lie that would set up generations of having to fake things, right? | ||
| You could just say, yeah, we tried to go to space. | ||
| It turns out there's like crazy radiation and everybody dies, so let's not try to leave. | ||
| Like there's a million other ways you could do it. | ||
| You're thinking they went with the strategy of let's fake space travel for the next 100 years on a continual basis. | ||
| As a conspiracy theorist, somebody who sits here and thinks and talks about conspiracies every day, this falls utterly, pardon the pun, flat. | ||
| This makes no sense as a conspiracy at all. | ||
| I strongly disagree, brother. | ||
| For one, let's not conflate if satellites are up there with space travel. | ||
| Those are fundamentally different things. | ||
| They're not really faking space that much. | ||
| They claim they went in the 60s and haven't gone back for 50 years and destroyed the technology and blah, blah, blah. | ||
| We've caught NASA faking it. | ||
| So I encourage everyone to investigate that. | ||
| You can actually go to my channel. I have a NASA fraud series I just started. | ||
| We have objectively caught them faking things using wires, harnesses, green screens, bubbles in space. | ||
| And people laugh because it sounds so ridiculous. | ||
| You know how many things you laughed at when you first heard and you found out it's true? | ||
| If I told you the world was going to shut down overnight and start using prison terms like lockdown, you would think I was crazy as well. | ||
| We've caught NASA lying and faking it. | ||
| Really, they've got to put it off. | ||
| They just kick the ball down the road over and over and over. | ||
| They kick the can down the road, right? | ||
| Oh, the moon mission's delayed again. | ||
| So they haven't had to fake that much. | ||
| And I don't even contend that satellites could be up there. | ||
| It's not a problem. And the people that are working on it aren't in on it. | ||
| To quote Gene Kranz, the Apollo flight director from the Apollo missions, he said... | ||
| The simulations are so good that no one in the control room can tell the difference between the simulations and the real thing. | ||
| And astronauts have come out and said that when they supposedly were going on these missions, they thought it was fake. | ||
| They couldn't even tell the difference. | ||
| So absolutely they wouldn't be in on it. | ||
| They're just being fed a system through a globe coordinate system, EPS corrections. | ||
| And this gets into technical things. | ||
| I will just say this. They're good questions, and I think if you're open-minded about your questions and open to the answers of them, when you really do dig into it, you find out, oh, wow, they're making corrections for the Sagnek effect because it doesn't work, and it shows different distances. | ||
| They're making meridian corrections in the south. | ||
| Because the distances don't work like they should on the globe. | ||
| They're actually running it through programs to correct and then put it out to the people on the other end as if it was, in fact, the globe that's working. | ||
| And these are provable things that require diligent research. | ||
| So I don't think that the lie is really going to require that many people be in on it. | ||
| They just believe the lie, right? | ||
| And by the way, many people have found out it's not true. | ||
| We've even had People that were astronauts come out and say, anyone telling you they're going to outer space, I guarantee you, is lying. | ||
| We've had a Polish astronaut come out and say, I wasn't expecting this question, but yes, the Earth is flat. | ||
| No one's going to outer space. | ||
| Let me say this one more thing. | ||
| You might find this interesting. I went and talked to astronauts myself, and I caught them lying. | ||
| I asked them, do you see the stars on the day side of the Earth when you're in space next to the sun? | ||
| And they said, no, you can't see the stars because of the sun. | ||
| But the official story is that you can only not see the stars during daytime because of the Earth's atmosphere, and you can see them in space. | ||
| And half the astronauts that have supposedly been to space said, you can see the stars, it's pitch black, it's amazing, you can even see them by the sun. | ||
| I looked an astronaut in the face and asked them, and they lied. | ||
| But why are they lying, right? | ||
| Well, yeah, I've heard that, but you're comparing... | ||
| Two different situations. | ||
| I mean, some astronauts say, yeah, we could see the stars. | ||
| Other astronauts say we couldn't see the stars, but they weren't next to each other on the same mission looking out the same window. | ||
| So these are just different accounts of different situations. | ||
| That doesn't prove anything to me. | ||
| It just proves sometimes you can see the stars, sometimes you can, depending on the source and strength of the light and the angle of the reflection off the Earth or where you're looking out the window of the spaceship. | ||
| I mean, these things are not proof that the Earth is flat or that astronauts are lying. | ||
| It's proof that there are different conditions at different times and space in Earth. | ||
| But we only have about two minutes left here. | ||
| Do you think that this is a valuable thing to spend time on? | ||
| I mean, we know all of the things going on in the world, and we probably agree on 99% of things. | ||
| It's just this one thing that we disagree on, which to me, again, the fact that this came out of nowhere, that nobody talked about Flat Earth before. | ||
| I mean, and you can do the reason. | ||
| You can look into the archives. Nobody talked about Flat Flat Earth Society existed. | ||
| You say it's a CIA PSYOP, but it's also the font where most of these arguments came from, so that isn't exactly positive for the Flat Earth model. | ||
| Divide, distract, discredit. | ||
| It's a divide-and-conquer influence operation. | ||
| It's something that splits our audience down the middle, and suddenly we're talking about flat earth instead of things that are actually important. | ||
| I think this has been an extremely successful PSYOP launched around the time that the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act was passed, allowing for propaganda in the American media landscape. | ||
| That allows the government through their liaisons and the media to actually lie to us, but they're not doing that. | ||
| They're saying no ancient civilization ever knew that the Earth was flat. | ||
| They're blatantly lying about it and misrepresenting it. | ||
| They do clearly use it as a way to discredit other conspiracies, but it's just like, oh, I bet you're an anti-vaxxer. | ||
| Just because someone uses it that way to dismiss people doesn't mean there's no validity to it. | ||
| As to the PSYOP, what I'm going to reiterate is if it's a PSYOP, it's not working very well because everyone that finds out that the Earth is a geocentric stationary plane We're good to go. | ||
| You asked me if I think it's important. | ||
| I do think it's important, bro, because I could very easily talk about other things, right? | ||
| And I wouldn't be nearly as kind of put into a corner, but I don't because this unravels all the lies. | ||
| We're coming to the end of the show here. I just want to thank you for doing this. | ||
| This has been extremely fun. I know it's been extremely popular. | ||
| Austin Witsit at Witsit Gets It on X. Go follow him. | ||
|
unidentified
|
While other networks lie to you about what's happening now, Infowars tells you the truth about what's happening next. | |
| Infowars.com forward slash show. | ||
| So what I really want to ask you to do is pray for myself and the crew and my family. | ||
| That's number one. I want that. | ||
| I need that. It's your prayer that's doing it. | ||
| That's why this surface. That's why this happened. | ||
| I need the prayer that I need you to take the articles, the videos, the posts we make at Real Alex Jones, recopy them, share them, post them yourself, do whatever, just get it out there. | ||
| And I need you to go to InfoWarsStore.com and I need you to get great products you already need. | ||
| There's a bunch of sales going. | ||
| DNA Force Plus is so good for your entire body. | ||
| It flushes out your mitochondria and your cells with the PQQ, the CoQ10, the ELV, ATP, the Organic Reishi, the Stragalus, Menbralis Root, and even more for 50%. | ||
| I haven't done that in a while. | ||
| That's amazing. Discover the power of tri-ionine, deep-growth crystal iodine X3, 40% off. | ||
| Body's Ultimate Turmeric Formula, 40% off. | ||
| And TurboForce, 10-hour clean energy, is 40% off at InfoWarsStore.com. |
Export Selection