Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 2, 2023 - Jim Fetzer

01:55:43

The Raw Deal "Flat Earth Special" (2 Aug 2023) with David Weiss and Austin Whitsitt

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Not just anybody.
	You know, I need someone.
	I owe you so much more than you pay.
	I can't believe that anybody's helping anyway.
	I can't believe anybody's helping anyway.
	Now these days have gone and I know what's up with your life.
	But you know what?
	I know.
	Well, this is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Raw Deal, where we have a very special show your host on The Raw Deal, where we have a very special It's going to be a cordial discussion and exchange of views about whether or not Earth could be flat with David Weiss and Austin Whitson.
	I'm very pleased to have them here with me today.
	Let me begin for those who may not know a bit about my background.
	In addition to being a former Marine Corps officer who's published widely on scientific knowledge, computer science, AI, cognitive science, more importantly, I earned my PhD in the history and the philosophy of science, where the history of science is dominated by the history of physics and astronomy.
	As I am going to explain as we proceed, the history of physics and astronomy is dominated by views that have led to the conclusion that Earth is a sphere, technically an oblate spheroid, slightly thicker at the equator, that it rotates on its axis, defining day and night, that we have the Moon orbiting Earth in roughly periods equal to months, and then that Earth
	Orbits the sun in periods of around 365 and a quarter day, where we got to make up by a leap year periodically to keep everything in sync, and where I'm going to explain how to reason scientifically about these issues and have a very cordial exchange with Austin and with David.
	I'd like to say a few words of introduction.
	David, it's a pleasure to have you here.
	Jim, we go back a long time and when I was telling people that we're going to be having this interview, there's a lot of new people in the truth.
	They're like, who's Jim Fetzer?
	They haven't heard of Jim.
	And to me, that's very strange because I've been at this a long time.
	Jim Fetzer is an OG truther.
	He has been around a long time.
	He's investigated all of the big hoaxes and we don't 100% agree on everything, but we're We're pretty much there.
	Flat Earth, that's where we have our divide.
	Jim's written some great books and almost all of them are banned on Amazon.
	And I always told people in the past, I go, if you want a good investment, buy Jim's books.
	Because in the future, you'll either be arrested for owning them or they'll be worth a fortune.
	And one of them, which I have right here, is not even available anymore.
	So if you see it on eBay or somewhere, I would grab it.
	And he wrote a book called We Didn't Go to the Moon.
	I suppose we didn't go to the moon.
	So Jim understands NASA is a big fraud.
	And to me, there's a small step to Flat Earth.
	So hopefully today, And I told Jim before the show, when I put this on my channel, I'm going to either name it, You Can't Teach an Old Dog New Tricks, or You Can Teach an Old Dog New Tricks.
	So today, with all respect, I'm going to send it over there.
	And also, I'll let Austin jump in, but I want to tell Jim, Austin has started a site called AuditNASA.
	And I'll let him tell you a little bit about that, but that is something that you might be very interested in, Austin.
	Yeah, how's it going?
	Glad to be here.
	Audit NASA is basically it's us attempting to actually hold NASA accountable because it appears that they kind of aren't held accountable and then you go to the FOIA process and nothing happens.
	So without giving too many details, it's somewhat secretive for tactical purposes, but basically we're just going to hold them accountable.
	Interactions with astronauts, direct interactions with NASA facility employees and stuff like that to kind of get to the bottom of a lot of their claims of space exploration.
	We want answers for all the glitches, etc.
	So basically it's just pulling back the curtain and the facade that NASA is sending people up into this vacuum all the time since 1969, which is Proveably not the case.
	So yeah, it's just to hold NASA accountable.
	We, I think, you know, $60 million a day.
	We should have a bit of a say.
	Yeah.
	I think those are very good points.
	And I have my own concerns about NASA, which, well, I think we largely converge in agreement that we can't believe, you know, they're also known as never a straight answer in ASA, which is pretty close to the mark.
	David, did you want to add more before we proceed?
	No, that's it.
	I just wanted to throw out that info and let's get into it.
	Okay, basically it's going to proceed in segments.
	We'll all give a presentation, principally from publicly accessible sources you can find somewhere on the internet, for example, and then have Austin and David respond as to how they deal with it.
	Because of my background as a philosopher of science, I want to begin with the principles of scientific reasoning, which proceeds in forceps or stages.
	Puzzlement—something doesn't fit in with your background knowledge.
	You want to figure out what's going on.
	Speculation—extremely important.
	Consider the complete range of alternative explanations.
	What are the full range of possibilities, whether you believe them or not?
	Adaptation, then, of hypotheses to evidence.
	Which hypothesis, if it were true, would confer the higher probability upon the available relevant evidence?
	Was special concern for showing not the authentic, but the fabricated evidence?
	Indeed, When you discover evidence is fabricated, that can be extremely important.
	In the case of JFK, for example, on which I've done massive collaborative research, where I specialize and pioneer in bringing together experts to sort out these complex and complicated cases, we discovered that the autopsy x-rays were altered to conceal a fist-sized blowout to the back of the head.
	And another brain was substituted for that of JFK in photographs and diagrams that are available to the public, and that the whole movie, the Prüder film, had been massively edited to conceal the true causes of death.
	Now, when you contemplate who could have done that, given that these forms of data were only available to medical officers of the US Navy and to Secret Service agents, it very dramatically narrows the range of possible suspects because KGB, it very dramatically narrows the range of possible suspects because KGB, for example, could not have extended its reach into Bethesda Naval Hospital to alter x-rays under control of medical officers in the Secret
	The mob couldn't have subsetted another film for the original's approver and edited it.
	Anti-Castro Cubans couldn't have worked someone else's brain into the National Archives.
	So we wind up having a very narrow range just based upon analysis of the fabricated evidence.
	Then when it's all settled down and points in the same direction, we're entitled to accept the best supported hypothesis in the tentative, infallible fashion of science, tentative insofar as new evidence might cause us to change our view or position, such as David and Austin are going to be presenting today Fallible in the sense that even though it's a best supported hypothesis, that does not guarantee it's true.
	It's simply the best supported, and we're entitled to treat it as true.
	Now, when it comes to scientific theories, I argue that conspiracy theories can be evaluated by the same criteria as scientific theories, The clarity and precision of the language in which they are expressed, their scope of application for the purpose of examination and prediction, their respective degrees of empirical support on the available evidence, and the economy, elegance, or simplicity with which they satisfy those first three criteria of adequacy.
	In the case of Flat Earth vs. Round, the third criterion of simplicity turns out to be very, very important in relation to what is known as the Copernican Revolution, about which I shall say more.
	Here's the general issue we're dealing with.
	We revolve around the Sun like any other planet, declared Nicholas Copernicus.
	Of all discoveries and opinions, none may have exerted a greater effect on the human spirit than the doctrine of Copernicus.
	The world has scarcely become known as round and complete in itself when it was asked to waive the tremendous privilege of being the center of the universe.
	Johannes Wolfgang von Goethe.
	Ancient Greek philosophers, whose ideas shaped the worldview of Western civilization leading up to the scientific revolution in the 16th century, had conflicting theories about why the planets moved across the sky.
	One camp thought the planets orbited around the Sun, but Aristotle, whose ideas prevailed, believed that the planets in the Sun orbited Earth.
	He saw no sign that the Earth was in motion, no perpetual wind blew over the surface of Earth, and a ball thrown straight up into the air doesn't land behind the thrower, as Aristotle assumed it would if Earth were moving.
	For Aristotle, this meant that the Earth had to be stationary, and that planets, the Sun, and the fixed dome of skies rotated around Earth.
	We have a couple of books that lay out the history of developments of what's known then as the Copernican Revolution, where Copernicus advocated the idea that you have a simpler overall theory of the relative motion of the Sun, the Moon, and Earth, If you assume that Earth revolves around Sun rather than Sun revolving around Earth.
	I highly recommend these.
	I. B. Cohen, The Birth of a New Physics, and Thomas S. Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution.
	Roughly, I would suggest that I. B. Cohen's book is high school level, The Copernican Revolution college level, but they're both easy reads and highly accessible.
	When we mention NASA, as David observed, I have a book, and I suppose we didn't go to the moon either, which my co-editor Mike Palachuk suggested as a successor to our earlier book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
	One might well reply, yeah, and I suppose we didn't go to the moon either.
	But the fact is, we did not go to the moon.
	Nobody died at Sandy Hook.
	And here's a photograph Showing what is supposed to be the Earth taken from the Moon by the astronauts.
	Now, many find this compelling, not realizing that the mass of Earth is 55 times that of the Moon.
	So if you're taking a photograph of Earth from the Moon, It would cover the entire visual field.
	It would be overwhelmingly greater.
	What we have here, rather clearly, is simply a photograph of the Moon from Earth, where it's been photoshopped to make the Moon appear as though it were Earth.
	This is a nice illustration of comparing the alternative hypothesis.
	Did we go to the Moon Versus, no, the moon landing was fake, because we have to raise the question, well, what's the probability of having a fake photograph of Earth allegedly taken from the moon if we actually land, which I think we'd all agree would have to be very low, versus what's the probability of having a fake So clearly, if this were our available evidence, we'd already have reason to think we did not go to the Moon.
	The Moon hoax hypothesis would be preferable to the Moon landing hypothesis.
	were our available evidence, we'd already have reason to think we did not go to the moon, that the moon hoax hypothesis would be preferable to the moon landing hypothesis.
	David, your thoughts?
	I'm going to defer to Austin on this because he's the pro at everything you just talked about.
	So Austin, let's go.
	Well, as it pertains to Earth specifically, because yes, I agree with your critique of the moon landing, but That's just the tip of the iceberg, but the history of the heliocentric model is oftentimes misrepresented by the mainstream.
	For example, Copernicus disavowed the heliocentric model before he died, as did Galileo.
	Newton, in the final page of his Principia, said that with all this being said, the Earth actually could be in the center, just like the Tychonic system says.
	Um, there is actually no astronomical observation that exists that shows that we're moving around the sun.
	In fact, the current model says everything we see looks as if the Earth is in the center of the universe, and there's no observation that's going to show differently, but it's just an illusion.
	So when I was looking at your parameters of determining what's true, It actually fits the geocentric position much better.
	I think that this conversation can be broken up into two primary aspects, motion and curvature.
	Um, and I think that really the geocentric aspect is a big part to hurdle or hurdle to do first, right?
	Like, um, so I don't want to just go all over the place.
	I can say a million things about that, but I will just state that there's a neo-tyconic system where the quote unquote planets move around the sun and that moves around the earth.
	And this explains retrograde aberration, the phases of the planets, the, uh, the transits, the, um, everything, literally everything, even when, Parallax.
	Now, when you look into some of these things, they're actually inflated pseudoscientific assumption, but long story short, I'm curious maybe as your take on the fact that if we're going to apply like logic and Occam's Razor and look at your standard that you presented, if all observations show that we're in the center of the universe, And the heliocentric model says that's just an illusion.
	It just looks like we're in the center, but there is no center and we're actually not.
	Then really, what are we found, like what evidence is it we're founding the idea we move around the sun upon?
	Because in reality, upon further investigation, there is no evidence that we move around the sun.
	All attempts to measure that show that we weren't moving.
	And all evidence ever shows that we're in the center.
	From Mickelson-Morley all the way up to the cosmic microwave background.
	Needless to say, a person's later views are not necessarily superior to their earlier, but you're inviting a discussion of exactly the issues we want to address here.
	Namely, I want to ask, and you will have the opportunity to explain, what are the dimensions of a flat Earth?
	I mean, we're talking about a three-dimensional object that is going to have width and breadth and depth.
	Plus, how do you explain day versus night, the rotation of the moon in the four seasons?
	Here's a map of Flat Earth coming from the book Zetetic Astronomy, published in 1865.
	The view has been around for a long time.
	Here's a Flat Earth illustration by Daniel Loxton.
	The sun and moon shown larger than imagined by Flat Earthers.
	There are three kinds of impossibility that we need to take account of.
	Logical, something that could not be the case because its description is contradictory, why there can't be any round squares.
	Or humorously, why there can't be any honest politicians.
	Physical could not be the case because it violates the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, regarding melting points, freezing points, causal relations, laws of material science.
	These all have very great significance.
	The point I would make in particular is if you're witnessing a violation of the laws of physics and you're witnessing a fantasy, something that cannot be true.
	It appears to me even, and this is a very general observation, flat Earth may be physically impossible because of the force of gravity, where everything having mass attracts everything else having mass, with a force that's proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, meaning If you double the distance between them, you only get one quarter of the amount of gravitational attraction, triple, only one ninth, and so forth.
	Technical impossibilities are things that could not happen because the technology had yet to be developed.
	Airborne flight before the Wright Brothers, electric light before Edison, auto before Ford.
	That applies especially to moon landing claims, because we didn't have the propulsion to escape low Earth orbit.
	We didn't have the computing capacity to navigate.
	A modern cell phone today has more computing capacity than allegedly got us to the moon and back.
	Communication.
	We didn't have the ability to communicate over 250,000 miles.
	I had an interesting exchange on Huffington Post when they published something I thought was rather silly.
	Supposed to be a brilliant tweet from a physicist debunking those who think we didn't go to the moon.
	That merely said something as silly as that.
	Anyone who thinks we didn't go to the moon needs to have a brain transplant.
	Well, it was an opportunity for me to deduce a lot of evidence.
	Since the moon is so far from the sun and sun was the only alleged source of light, you should have no shadows that intersect or aren't exactly parallel, yet we have intersecting shadows.
	We have it lit up on the dark side of the moon lander where it should be in darkness.
	We have photographs Some with and without footprints in the moon dust, which I believe because moon has no atmosphere, would be as incapable of preserving prints as the sands of the Sahara.
	Yeah, David, go ahead.
	You've brought up a million questions there.
	Austin, did you happen to note them down from the beginning so we can address them?
	Well, I was going to toss you the seasons and the day and night, so if you want to go ahead and address those and then we can continue on.
	I have more on the season, just to set it up, what is a standard account so you can debunk it.
	I mean, I'm setting it up for you to do your thing.
	Yeah, so let us let us address each one of these and we'll keep it as tight as possible.
	When you say, you know, what's under the flat earth, you showed a disc floating in space.
	No flat earther thinks we're discs floating in space.
	And the deepest hole ever dug was in Russia, and it went down less than eight miles.
	So the deepest hole ever dug is eight miles.
	And when they were digging it, they were wrong every step of the way what they're going to hit next.
	But somehow they know the next 4,000 miles to the center is absolutely ridiculous.
	There's zero evidence of any of that.
	So what's under the flat Earth?
	Great question, Jim.
	Maybe you could tell me.
	When it comes to seasons, we're taught that the tilt of the Earth is what causes the sun to spread out.
	We've got our ball, we've got the sun, and when we're tilted away, the sun spreads over a bigger area.
	And that actually makes no sense at all, because at sunrise in June here in the north, when the sun is at the most tilted it could possibly be, it should be arctically cold.
	One, because you couldn't be tilted any farther away at sunrise, and two, the sun is farther from us in our summer in the north, the sun is Farther away than it is during our winter.
	And I noticed in your last presentation, you mentioned that we're seasons are because we're closer to the sun.
	That's not the heliocentric model.
	Heliocentric model says we're three and a half million miles farther from the sun during our northern winter.
	And it's the angle that the sun hits us.
	Well, angles happen.
	You spin a ball around its axis or tilts or whatever.
	That's still an angle.
	Sunrise in June should be arctically cold, but in June, here in Connecticut, I can feel the sun on my face.
	It's very warm.
	And at noon in December, when the sun is closer and higher in the sky than that sun, I can feel the heat.
	And it's farther away and a much more direct angle than in the summer.
	So, Jim, if you can see my window here, Um, so we have, we have the inner yellow line here is the Tropic of Cancer, and the outer yellow line is the Tropic of Capricorn.
	And so right now the sun is coming from the Tropic of Capricorn from December, and it's working its way, I mean the Tropic of Cancer in June, I forget where we are.
	And it's moving its way out towards the Tropic of Capricorn.
	So right now, it's August, and I go September, October, November, December.
	And in December, the sun is out here.
	Now, people in Australia, the sun is directly over them.
	It's hot.
	It's high above them.
	So it's high in the sky, like a streetlight.
	When you're standing under a streetlight, the one above you is your summer sun, and the one down the road is your winter sun.
	Jim, let's say you came here to Connecticut, and we're sitting out in a field 20 feet apart, and it's freezing cold.
	Okay?
	And it's just freezing.
	The field is frozen.
	It's horrible.
	And then Austin comes over, and he's got a big heat lamp, and he holds it 15 feet over your head.
	Big, giant heat lamp.
	And you go, oh, that feels so good.
	And you take off your coat, and you're warm.
	And I say, Jim, where is that heat lamp, that sun?
	And you point straight up.
	But when I look at it, I point, it's over there.
	It's lower in my sky, even though it's still 15 feet above.
	Now Austin walks over to me, it takes six months to get over to me, and I watch that heat lamp get higher and higher and higher, even though it's still 15 feet in the air, you watch it get lower and lower.
	I get warmer, you get colder.
	That's a demonstrable way that we can prove how seasons work.
	That actually works.
	Tilting of a ball does not create seasons, okay?
	And if the sun is, you know, 186,000 miles across, what difference does it make if it's tilted?
	It's still getting a direct sunlight because, you know, supposedly all the sun rays are coming in directly.
	That would only make sense if it was close and we were tilted.
	I don't even know if that would make sense.
	So that is a great explanation for how seasons work.
	What was the other thing?
	Was there something else or did you want to go Austin?
	No, I'll just address some more overall things, like it is a very interesting question what's below the flat earth, right?
	Like that's obviously, but this is what normally happens with this conversation.
	People seem to go into it thinking the globe has no burden to substantiate their claims and let's poke holes in the flat earth.
	What's underneath 8 miles on the globe?
	It hasn't been verified, and their predictions were all provably wrong.
	Now, I do have a good explanation, scientifically, for what would be underneath the Flat Earth.
	It would be, we're in a magnetic field, a giant torus field.
	There's a plane of inertia in the middle.
	It's called a blocked domain wall.
	You cannot penetrate it, which is why they couldn't keep going down.
	And then, effectively, it would be the opposite, the other side of the magnetic field below us.
	As above, so below.
	With the fractal nature of all things in physics.
	That would be my answer.
	But that's purely speculation.
	And the reason that we're flat earthers is we discovered you can't just make up stories and believe them.
	You can't go below 8 miles and we don't know.
	And his answer to the seasons is pretty simple, right?
	The sun moves in the sky.
	They claim that the ecliptic of the sun is because the earth is tilted.
	But actually, no.
	The sun just has a certain ecliptic that it moves over top of the earth.
	And that gives us our seasons throughout the day, which is why we have the analima.
	And then we have day and night because the sun is a local light source.
	It doesn't light up the entire earth.
	And so it has a radius of light.
	And as it moves over the earth, it comes back around to where you get light again.
	So all of those things work perfect on a flat earth.
	And honestly, the ironic part is that if we're going to apply logic, we would establish the default position.
	And the default position is the earth's not moving, that the horizon is horizontal, that water finds its level in this flat when it's at rest, static fluid statics, that we see the sun moving because the sun moves.
	We see the moon moving because the moon moves.
	We see the star move because the stars move.
	That's our position.
	And then the other position is, oh, well, it looks like the sun is moving, but it's actually not.
	It looks like the moon is moving, but it's not.
	It looks like the stars are moving, but it's not.
	So that has the burden of proof, right?
	The one claiming the opposite.
	Our position is actually very simple.
	It's just that all empirical evidence shows us what the Earth is.
	And so hopefully that answers.
	I think that's generally what you asked at first.
	I don't want to overload.
	Overload one side, so.
	We were supposed to have the brakes killed.
	Yeah, Mitchell, please do kill the brake.
	Let me continue to lay out.
	Apologies.
	Peace. - Yes.
	It's all good.
	I can't hear it.
	We can't hear it.
	Yeah, I don't hear it on our side.
	Revolution Radio on freedomslots.com.
	There it is.
	Right back.
	Oh, the Flat Earthers are crushing.
	Management would like to take a moment to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support that has made Revolution Radio one of the biggest platforms for free speech. - I think Mitchell actually finally did kill the break.
	Let me just go forward with A standard interpretation of Earth's orbital motion, we're going to get it in detail here, where the differences between the seasons are defined by relative proximity to the Sun as well as the tilt of the Earth's axis.
	But it's not the tilt of the Earth's axis that is crucial, it's how close the Earth is to the Sun.
	Well, when it's closest to the sun, we have summer.
	When it's furthest from the sun, we have winter, autumn, and spring.
	Let me interrupt.
	Let me interrupt.
	You're wrong.
	The heliocentric model says we are closer to the sun.
	David, let me present, and then you can do it, okay?
	I set out the rules at the beginning.
	You and Austin are violating… That's fine.
	Alright.
	You may have noticed that the weather changes a lot throughout the year.
	In some months, the days are short and it can get pretty cold.
	It might even snow!
	In other months, there are more hours of daylight.
	It can be sunny and hot almost every day.
	These yearly weather patterns are called seasons, and they occur due to the position and movement of the Earth around the Sun.
	There are four different seasons.
	Summer, Autumn, Winter, and Spring.
	Summer is the hottest season with the most hours of daylight.
	As summer moves to autumn, or fall, the weather gets cooler and there are fewer hours of daylight.
	Winter is the coldest season with the fewest hours of daylight.
	In spring, the weather starts to warm up and the number of daylight hours increases.
	Each season lasts for about three months and occurs once over a period of one year.
	Let's take a look at the Earth and its movement around the Sun.
	You probably already know that the Earth rotates about an axis.
	It also revolves around the sun.
	The Earth does not rotate straight up and down.
	It's tilted at an angle.
	It's this tilted rotation that causes seasons.
	The Earth can be divided into two parts, called hemispheres.
	There's the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere.
	When the Earth is positioned here, the Northern Hemisphere is tilted towards the Sun.
	It receives more direct sunlight than the Southern Hemisphere.
	This results in warmer weather and more hours of daylight.
	It's summer!
	At the same time, the southern hemisphere is tilted away from the sun.
	It receives less direct sunlight.
	The weather is colder and the days are shorter.
	It's winter!
	When the Earth is positioned here, the southern and northern hemispheres are at similar distances from the the southern and northern hemispheres are at similar distances from the The Northern Hemisphere experiences autumn, and the Southern Hemisphere experiences spring.
	In this position, the Southern Hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, and it's summer.
	The Northern Hemisphere is a very strong and strong.
	The Northern Hemisphere is now tilted away from the sun.
	And you guessed it, it's winter!
	Lastly, the hemispheres are at an equal distance from the sun again.
	The Northern Hemisphere moves from winter to spring.
	and the southern hemisphere moves from summer to autumn.
	Here's a cool fact: Due to the shape of the Earth, the seasons and lengths of days get pretty extreme near the North and South Poles.
	In summer, it's daylight for several months and the sun doesn't set.
	In winter, it remains dark for several months, and the sun doesn't rise at all.
	Isn't that amazing?
	"The Earth is a pretty amazing place." - Let me make two points about that.
	Number one, That the seasons really are defined by proximity of Earth to the Sun, not just the tilt of the Earth's axis, which makes a difference as to which parts of Earth, of course, are experiencing the seasons at the time.
	And that this gave a simplified model suggesting it was a circular orbit of Earth around the Sun, where Kepler already discovered that actually, mathematically, it's an ellipse with the Sun at one foci.
	Now, Newton, of course, was the guy who put it all together based on prior work by Kepler and Galileo to refine a theory in terms of his laws of physics, which give an elegant explanation that is far simpler than any model you derive by assuming Earth is a stationary immobile center of the solar system.
	It is simpler, and that's very important.
	Let me emphasize in relation to that question of logical possibility or not, it's logically possible to maintain Earth is the immobile center of the universe.
	We even had Aristotle, one of the three greatest philosophers of all time, embracing that position.
	But the theory of what goes on then in relation to a stationary Earth becomes incredibly complicated.
	It's like, you can illustrate it by a train moving, say, at 80 miles an hour.
	If you're inside the train, you could assume you were immobile, that you were not in motion, but yet everything is flashing by on the outside because it's the rest of the world that's in motion, you on the train are not.
	The question then becomes, is it simpler to assume that you on the train are not in motion and everything else that's going on is incredibly complicated, or rather to adopt what's known as a frame of reference whereby the train is in motion and you get an overall simpler theory?
	This is very much at the heart of the debate between Flat Earth and Spherical.
	David?
	So I'm going to make a quick comment, then I'll let Austin go.
	Sorry for interrupting.
	I thought we'd have a little back and forth.
	No worries.
	We'll move forward.
	You keep claiming that it's the distance to the sun, but how can we have winter when we're on one end of the ellipse and on the other?
	The tilt is what causes the season, not the distance, according to the heliocentric model.
	So that's where you're incorrect.
	But that video said the tilt.
	So when you're tilted towards the sun, it's summer.
	Austin, go.
	Yeah, to clarify, they say that we're actually 3 million miles closer, I think, in the winter.
	This is very interesting.
	I'm wondering if we're going to keep this same energy when I break this down.
	Because I agree that simplicity is very important logically, so let's talk about it.
	You conflated Newton and Einstein.
	You began to talk about reference frames after invoking Newton.
	They're distinctly different.
	Newton did not have relativity as a principle in his theory.
	So just to really break it down, Kepler came up with the kinematics, which is how bodies move in relation to each other.
	He said that the sun was a god and it was singing a heavenly song and that its vibration caused everything to move around the sun and that the sun was the center of the universe.
	And actually, Tycho Brahe's system was simpler, and Kepler actually had to have way more epicycles to make it work.
	So actually, if it's based on simplicity, geocentrism wins from the beginning, because Kepler had to add more epicycles to make the math work kinematically.
	And then you moved to Newton, and you said that he gave an elegant explanation.
	He did not.
	In fact, Newton said specifically, this boggles my mind, I can't give an explanation.
	He said the idea that gravity would act on innate brute matter through a vacuum without something being in between them.
	is, to me, so great an absurdity that no man with competent faculty of thinking would ever fall into it.
	He specifically said he couldn't come up with an explanation, and that the explanation that would be required makes no sense, and that it must be a direct act of God.
	So then we fast forward to Einstein, and I want to share my screen so I can just show what Einstein said really fast.
	So I'm gonna share the screen.
	I'm gonna move this over here.
	Uh that didn't work but anyway you guys can see my screen and I'm just gonna I'm just gonna show him and then I'll move it back away but this is Einstein saying I have come to believe that the motion of the earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment he goes on to say though the earth moves around the sun then here he is saying to the question whether or not the motion of the earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments we have already remarked that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result before the theory of relativity was put forward it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result Okay, there we go.
	So, this is what actually happened, was they tried to measure if the Earth was moving around the Sun in Michael Smorely, and it didn't measure it.
	And so Einstein had to come in and fix the problem.
	Newtonian mechanics is not even on the table anymore.
	It's over a hundred years, unacceptable, it doesn't work.
	Relativity came in and said, okay, yeah.
	We can't measure the motion of the earth, but that's because the apparatus contracted.
	We just couldn't tell.
	And it looks like it didn't contract and time stretched out and slowed down and you just can't tell.
	So it created the illusion that the earth is stationary.
	So in reality, the more simple position is that everything looks like we're in the center because we're in the center.
	The much more complicated idea is that the Earth looks like it's in the center, but actually matter contracts and gets shorter.
	You just can't tell.
	And time slows down.
	You just can't tell.
	So it creates the illusion that we're actually in the center, even though we're tilted, wobbling, spinning, flying around the sun.
	That's actually flying around the galaxy.
	That's actually flying to the universe over a million miles per hour.
	So that is the much more complicated So, in actuality, all evidence ever has shown that the Earth is in the center and that it's geocentric.
	The current model says, yeah, that's what it looks like.
	It's just an illusion.
	And the math doesn't work.
	It doesn't work to explain Mercury's perihelion shift.
	Doesn't even work on the solar system.
	And then in closing, whenever you extend it out past the solar system, which you have to, then the geocentric model dunks on the heliocentric model because in order to explain why what happened was Hubble looked out and saw the distant galaxies were moving in relation to the Earth.
	And he's like, this doesn't make sense.
	This shouldn't be happening.
	The earth is tucked away in a tiny little corner and insignificant.
	Why would it be doing that?
	So they came up with the idea that the universe is accelerating and expanding in all directions.
	So it creates the illusion that the earth is in the center.
	So that's called the Hubble constant.
	rate of expansion.
	So it needs something called the cosmological constant, which is the energy that causes it to expand.
	And they call that dark energy, which they can't define, can't identify, have never found and don't know what it is.
	A geocentric model doesn't have that problem.
	So actually, the geocentric model is way more simple, more elegant and more viable because it doesn't need dark energy.
	It doesn't need dark matter.
	It doesn't need the two primary things that make up 96%.
	So, there's a kinematic and dynamic equivalence between a geocentric and heliocentric model, and the difference is the geocentric model doesn't have the 96% discrepancy of dark matter and dark energy that the heliocentric model has.
	And this is...
	A fact, I have a hundred quotes right here from top-level astrophysicist astronomers that will confirm this.
	So, the belief is actually that everything's an illusion.
	The heliocentric model is much more complicated.
	It says that everything is going to appear that we're in the center, but it's just a trick.
	So, it's a misnomer that people believe.
	And one last thing, when we say, okay, well, here's the explanation for the seasons, that's how we know the earth moves around the sun, that's just begging the question.
	They looked at the seasons, they looked at the sun, and they said, if the earth is moving, this is what would have to be happening, and they came up with an idea.
	That isn't proof that's what's happening, that's what they had to come up with to try to explain it if the earth was moving.
	So, the real question is, is there any evidence Any empirical evidence that is actually exclusive that the Earth is moving around the Sun?
	Is there any evidence?
	Is there any measurements ever?
	And the answer is no.
	That all attempts to do that, just like Einstein said, show that the Earth is not moving.
	That's why relativity exists, to explain that away.
	Einstein said there is no difference in the Earth being in the center and the Sun moving around it, or the Sun being in the center and the Earth moving around it, and that they're the same, and that the question is meaningless, and that the violence, you know, the struggle so violent between Ptolemy and Copernicus seemingly was meaningless.
	So, it's... I agree with you, this is like the biggest part of the conversation, though, because no one knows what I just said.
	We were lied to.
	Let me revert to the history of this issue.
	Even some pre-Socratic philosophers thought Earth was a flat disk floating in water or suspended in space, very much as you believe.
	By the time of Ptolemy, the great Egyptian astronomer, he had constructed a theory about the motion of the planets and the Sun around Earth that was based on the assumption of circular orbits.
	The idea that objects in space display circular motion as those on Earth did not was fundamental even in Aristotle's thinking about these issues.
	Now, what Copernicus discovered was that if you assume that the Sun is the center rather than Earth, You can simplify your model in multiple different respects.
	It's complicated, but laid out very elegantly in the books by I.B.
	Cohen and T.S.
	Kuhn that I've already cited.
	The predominance of the circular dogma that spatial objects had to be, you know, if they were in motion, in circular motion, was shattered by Kepler, building on the naked eye observation of Tycho Brahe, to whom you alluded, where Kepler discovered it was impossible to reconcile observations of the relative locations of the stars and so forth in relation to Earth
	With a circular motion, it had to be elliptical.
	That was what was so important about Kepler.
	He couldn't quite explain the force that kept the planets in place.
	That would fall to Newton to introduce a concept of gravity, building on Galileo's experiments about free fall.
	Galileo, by the way, debunked another Aristotelian belief, namely that every object in space is perfectly smooth and spherical.
	By turning a telescope, he'd heard of a Dutch lensmaker named van Leeuwenhoek.
	Having invented a telescope and he invented one of his own design and focused on the moon and discovered the moon's surface was all pockmarked and irregular, which meant that Aristotle's doctrine was thereby refuted.
	Indeed, many regard this as a beginning of true empirical science, testing a theory based upon observations, measurements, and experiments.
	He also turned his telescope to Jupiter and discovered Jupiter had moons that were orbiting that planet.
	So Galileo made extremely important contributions of that Newton to synthesize all the motions of the planet, both terrestrial and celestial, by the way, by the theory of universal gravitation defined by the law of gravity and the three laws of motion.
	There is no mathematician alive who would not declare that Newton was perhaps the greatest scientist of all time for the elegance of his mathematical reconstruction.
	Now, when you talk about Einstein, and I wasn't bringing in This guy, but it's true.
	Frames of reference make a difference.
	It turns out in classical Newtonian theory, all space-time relations are absolute.
	There is absolute space, absolute time.
	Every event occurs either at the same time as, earlier than, or later than every other event in the universe.
	What Einstein showed was there's a relativistic aspect, even in the sequence in which events occur in relation to one another, that requires positing a frame of reference.
	This meant that Newton's theory actually turns out to be a special limiting case For relativity theory, for areas, regions of space-time that are relatively small, and for causal processes that are relatively slow in relation to the speed of light, but it's absurd to suggest that classical Newtonian science doesn't apply.
	Let me also mention, by the way, when I seek to explain that It's logically possible to maintain Earth as stationary if you're willing to make sufficient enough drastic alterations in your other view.
	Adopting flat Earth theory today entails rejecting the history of astronomy and physics as it exists today.
	Let me add a little more here to the next issue I want to address, Round Earth Clues, How Science Proves Our Home is a Globe.
	Backtrack to the time before satellites and telescopes.
	Why did people once think that the Earth was flat?
	The primary reason ancient people believed Earth was flat was that it looks flat from our vantage point on the ground.
	Most people throughout history never traveled more than a few miles from their place of birth, so the horizon they saw was always the same.
	Moreover, Most people were more worried about meeting the necessities of life than they were about the shape of Earth.
	The misconception that Earth must be flat because it looks flat to us arises simply because the Earth is big.
	The height of an adult is much less than a millionth of the Earth's radius.
	In order to see the curvature of Earth in a single field of view, you would need to be perched above the surface a sizable fraction of that radius, and one millionth wouldn't be considered sizable.
	So what clues changed their thinking?
	And we're going to review a good number, but in segments.
	The state of affairs began to change about 2,500 years ago, during the Iron Age, especially with the Greeks.
	There were two primary reasons the Greeks knew Earth was round.
	Lunar eclipses.
	First, they saw that during a lunar eclipse, the shadow of the Earth always had a round profile.
	This happened regardless of the time of night the eclipse occurred, the season, or the direction the shadow crept across the Moon's surface.
	The only object that casts a circular shadow, no matter how you shine a light across it, is a sphere.
	Any other shape would not be able to cast a round shadow under this variety of circumstances.
	The second observation is how the patterns of stars changes as you move north and south.
	If you were to stand at the North Pole, Polaris, the North Star, would be directly overhead.
	On a flat Earth, Polaris would always be visible.
	No matter how far away from the North Pole you move, it would still be above the horizon.
	However, By the time you reach the equator, Polaris is on the northern horizon and it disappears entirely once you move into the southern hemisphere.
	You can't see Polaris from Australia.
	In fact, the ancient Greeks calculated the circumference of the Earth using this method and produced an answer that was strikingly close to what we measure today.
	So watch a lunar eclipse.
	Solar eclipses get all the attention, but if you're able to catch a glimpse of a lunar eclipse, you can see evidence that the Earth is indeed round.
	Here's how it works.
	Earth passes between the Moon and the Sun, so the Sun projects Earth's shadow onto the Moon in the night sky.
	You've probably seen a partial lunar eclipse without even noticing it.
	If the moon looks orange, that's a sign of a lunar eclipse.
	If you've never seen a total lunar eclipse, you've probably noticed that the shadow did not look like this.
	If Earth were flat, it might very well look like this.
	So, gentlemen—oh, wait a sec.
	I think I have—yeah.
	Is that the earth too is round as show thus.
	The stars do not rise and set, the same for men everywhere, but rise and set sooner for those in the east than for those in the west, and of this there is no other cause than the bulge of the earth.
	Let me make sure I didn't miss something.
	Yes.
	Too often, discourse about the shape of the earth becomes about proving negatives and centers on explaining that something isn't true rather than proving that it is true.
	Indeed, the burden should be on flat-earth theorists to explain clearly why their theories are correct and use science to back those claims.
	Fortunately, for every idea on why Earth might be flat, there is physical evidence to prove Earth is definitely globular.
	Here's a bunch of this evidence, and you don't even need to spend a million bucks to launch yourself into space, compliments of Elon Musk.
	First, watch a ship sail off to sea.
	Without being in the sky, it's impossible to see the curvature of the Earth.
	However, you can always see a demonstration if you visit a harbor or any place with a wide-open view of the water.
	If you're able to watch a ship sail off to sea, watch the mast and flag as it fades off into the distance.
	You will notice that, in fact, it does not fade off into the distance at all.
	Instead, you'll see the mass and flag appear to slowly sink.
	The ship sailed beyond the point at which you would see it.
	Just to be sure, bring a pair of binoculars so you can see even further into the distance.
	As you're watching it go over to the other side of a hill, as if you're watching it go over to the other side of a hill, this phenomenon can only be explained by a sphere-shaped planet.
	Ships appear to sink as they move closer to the horizon and emerge as they move closer to the observer.
	The argument.
	As a ship moves from an observer toward the horizon, the hull disappears first, then the mast and the main structure, and lastly the antennae, or sails.
	When ships return from the sea, the sequence is reversed.
	The antennae and sails will be seen first, followed by the mast and main structure of the ship, and finally the hull.
	If the Earth were flat, the ship would shrink until the entire craft was too small to discern, but this is not the case.
	Ships do shrink when they're moving away from an observer, but eventually parts of it disappear piece by piece.
	There are counter-arguments.
	There are many reasons why the ship appears to sink as it moves toward the horizon first.
	The hull disappears because its angular side reaches the limit of the human eye before any other part of the ship.
	Second, the sinking ship effect can be caused by bulges on the surface of the ocean.
	Third, the sinking ship effect could be a result of repraction.
	Rajesh can appear and disappear over water, which causes a sinking ship effect.
	I want to go back to you guys to address these issues before going further.
	Go right ahead.
	Jim, it would be great if we could go point by point.
	You threw out hours of stuff to us to respond to, but one of the things you said And I want to get our minds out of the sky, out of old stories, what people said, and math in the sky, with lights in the sky that can't be verified.
	And I want to bring it down to Earth.
	But you said the North Star can't be seen in the South.
	It has been seen, actually, as far as 30 degrees South.
	But these streetlights are going down, and I have to assume that the ones down the road are dropping below the curve of a ball, if what you're saying is true.
	Here's the sun.
	Right, and here's a street light.
	So things just go into the distance, the atmosphere becomes opaque, the clouds, the atmosphere, everything compresses into a horizontal eye zone, and the lights in the sky just go beyond it.
	So the reason you can't see the North Star in the South is because we're too far from the center of the flat Earth.
	You showed, you talked about eclipses, the lunar eclipse, and then you showed the meme of a flat disk.
	Again, you have to listen, Jim.
	Nobody believes that the Earth is a disk floating in space.
	Nobody except globe-believers think flat Earth, flat Earth-believers think that.
	So I'm going to just make one more point.
	I'm going to throw it over to Austin, which has got some stuff about boats over the horizon.
	But, um, you have to agree, if the Earth is a globe, that things go over the curve.
	Right, Jim?
	If things go far enough away... Listen, listen, and it's a terribly important mathematical point.
	For a large... No, no, no, it's my turn.
	It's my turn.
	I just asked you a simple question.
	I asked you a simple question.
	It's a yes or no question.
	Your time.
	I am.
	So if something goes into the distance, eventually it'll go over the curve and be hidden by a physical earth curvature, right?
	Like my mouth is behind this physical earth curvature and you can't see me even if you zoomed in with a camera because it's behind a physical curve.
	Can you agree with that?
	I'm not, this is your time, David, I'll respond when I come back.
	Alright, so we're gonna hit a break in a minute, so let me know when that's happening.
	So, on a ball, there's a required Distance to a physical curvature and only weather conditions and stuff can only bring it closer.
	It can't make it farther.
	A six foot tall person standing at the edge of perfectly calm water on a perfectly calm day, according to globe math, would have a water horizon at three miles away.
	And they should not be able to see the surface of the water beyond it because it's behind a physical curve.
	But we all can go out there with our Zoom cameras and our naked eyes and see things that are much farther than that.
	And if you sit down, that horizon's closer.
	And if there's fog or waves, that virtual horizon is even closer.
	Here's an observation from a mountaintop, and these mountains are over 700 miles away.
	There's eight of them, and according to globe math, the tops of all of these mountains should be over 40 miles below the curve.
	No mainstream scientists, nobody, will address this.
	Okay?
	The top, just listen, Jim, the tops of these mountains should be 40 miles below a physical curve, but we can see them.
	All right?
	We're going to hit a break that we cannot change.
	I mean, I can kill the brakes at the bottom, but we're going to hit a break at the top.
	No problem.
	And Austin, Austin will continue when we come back.
	Absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	You killed a main break?
	Yeah.
	Mitchell, you killed a main break?
	Smile.
	Okay, go ahead, Austin.
	Lay it on.
	Austin.
	Okay, so I'm going to share this with you guys and then I'm going to come over here so they can see it.
	All right, so let's define horizon.
	The line at which the Earth's surface and the sky appear to meet.
	So it's a very important word there.
	Appear.
	It's just apparent.
	It's not actual.
	So let's check it out.
	Here's a boat.
	And now we can see the boat.
	Now we can't see the bottom of that boat because it's in water.
	But you can see that the horizon is actually behind the boat.
	So, obviously that boat's not behind the curve of Earth that is the horizon, but when I zoom out, now the boat disappears.
	But when I zoom back in, I can see the boat.
	I can't see the bottom of the boat, because it's in water, and the horizon's behind it.
	Right?
	So, here's another example.
	Where, when I zoom out, there we go.
	What, the bottom of that boat looks like it's obstructed slightly, but the horizon's behind it.
	Now there's actually all kinds of aspects of this.
	I don't want to get too complicated, but the horizon is merely an apparent location.
	The horizon is defined as where the sky appears to meet the ground.
	So you have the sky ramping down to eye level, and then you have the ground ramping up to eye level, and they meet in this convergence point called the horizon, which is literally the word horizontal comes from the word horizon.
	For a reason.
	In that location, the horizon constantly changes.
	It goes up and down.
	It goes further away and closer.
	The Earth's not breathing in and out.
	It's not stretching doing yoga.
	The horizon's not a real physical place.
	We have a limit to how far we can see relative to optical angles and atmospheric conditions.
	Oh, whoa.
	Sorry.
	I didn't know this was on.
	I'm sorry.
	There's nothing wrong.
	You guys can't hear it, but it's playing a super shout out loud.
	I'm sorry.
	So you see the optical diffraction limit here where there's a mirroring zone?
	Obviously the curve of the earth is not where the boat looks reversed.
	That's just the atmos.
	Right?
	And so here is, this is scientific evidence that can be tangibly proven.
	Science is not looking in the sky and making up stories and then saying, I think this makes sense.
	Natural science is tangible experiments where you manipulate the independent variable.
	Here, we have Rayleigh criteria explained, and this explains the boat disappearing from the bottom up and a sunset.
	Where as you change, these are two lasers, and as you change the resolution, they begin to merge into each other and the bottom disappears because the propagation and reception angles That's a talking point that people say to flat earthers a lot, but that isn't true.
	Because the bottom is actually going to have a lower reception and propagation angle, thus disappear first, meaning lose resolvability.
	from the bottom up.
	So it wouldn't just all disappear at the same time.
	That's scientifically incorrect.
	That's a talking point that people say to flat earthers a lot, but that isn't true because the bottom is actually going to have a lower reception and propagation angle, thus disappear first, meaning lose resolvability.
	And then here is an easy way to show that the earth is not a ball.
	If we look at this horizon, supposedly the globe is the reason that there's a horizon.
	This should be a physical location of Earth curvature blocking stuff in the distance.
	And it's dropping down and away from us in all directions.
	On a globe, of course.
	But that's not what we see in reality if we watch this video.
	As we increase altitude, the horizon is actually rising up with us.
	Now, the horizon, if it's some physical curve of the Earth, it should be going down and away from us.
	As we increase our altitude, the horizon rises with eye level.
	As you can see right here, the arrow stays on the horizon, but as we increase, the horizon goes above that.
	The horizon is just an apparent location, and here's proof of that.
	This is a time lapse of the horizon throughout one day.
	Look at it.
	Changing.
	The Earth is not changing size.
	That is just an optical limit based on how our eyes work or any optics work, and it changes with atmospheric conditions.
	So the whole boat over the horizon thing?
	Yeah, if the Earth was a ball, the boat would disappear at three miles every single time a six-foot observer looked out at it, and it doesn't.
	I've seen boats from 30 miles away, then I pull my infrared out and I can see it from 35 miles away.
	I can zoom in with infrared and bring the bottom of the boat back, Okay, so if you use the same optics, the bottom won't normally come back because you've reached the resolution limit based on Rayleigh's criteria and the propagation and reception angles.
	It's purely optics.
	Provably right here, it's showing you the horizon is just optical.
	So there is no evidence that the earth is a ball because boats disappear from the bottom up.
	In fact, what it shows is the opposite.
	So I will stop there.
	Well, let me respond, but I need to recapture, I need to rebound the image here.
	Hang on.
	While you're doing that, Jim, let me, can I just suggest that just if you, when you're doing your presentation, if you could just stop after each point and let us give a quick response rather than throw 20 at us and then not respond to 19 of them.
	Well, I hardly think that Austin's massive onslaught about physics was of that nature, David, let me just say.
	With all due respect, I've heard mountains avalanche of arguments coming without any opportunity to respond point by point.
	I'm doing my best, I'll break it up.
	Now I want to continue here about these issues of the perception of the horizon.
	Why distant skyscrapers are visible despite the curvature of Earth.
	This applies to the type of argument that Austin's been making.
	This photo was taken at Mount Baldy in Indiana at Dunes National Park on the southeast coast of Lake Michigan, probably 60 kilometers across the water from the city of Chicago, which lies on the opposite bank.
	At that distance, Chicago's skyline should not be visible as a curvature of Earth takes it beyond the horizon.
	The fact that the buildings are visible is simply a mirage.
	Mirages are usually created when a cold, dense layer of air sits above a layer of warmer, Less dense air.
	For example, when the sun beats down on a black road on a hot summer's day, the warm ground heats the bottom few centimeters of air, refracting sunlight up to your eyes to create an inferior mirage.
	But if a layer of warm air sits above your line of sight, with a cool layer beneath, you get a superior mirage.
	Light bends down toward the dancer rare, but because our eyes assume the light has traveled in a straight line, the object appears higher than it is.
	This effect also explains why a far-off ship can be seen even though it might have disappeared below the horizon.
	It can even make distant boats appear to float in the air.
	Let me add here, very nice because I know these visual observations are crucial, this is a slightly longer but very important report about it.
	Hello again everyone, hope you're doing well and thanks for joining us for another video.
	Now regardless of which side of the fence you're on about what shape the earth is, one thing we all seem to be able to agree on is that surveying works.
	I don't mean the people who stand in the street with a clipboard asking you 95 different questions about your latest bowel movement.
	I'm talking about surveying using equipment such as theodolites to survey an area of land and get accurate measurements, which can then be used in things like engineering projects.
	Now, if engineering surveying wasn't accurate, then big engineering projects would quickly go very wrong.
	And in a recent video I'd shown an excerpt from a surveying training website called LearnCST, which was run by the National Society of Professional Surveyors in America.
	The webpage in question was called Curvature Definitions for Land Surveyors, and the last definition on that page was explaining how land surveyors include 6cm of correction per 1km of measured distance to account for the curvature of the earth.
	Obviously that is something they wouldn't have to do if the Earth was flat.
	And in the video I also included a demonstration that someone had done using a theodolite across a lake to show that the lake itself follows the curve of Earth.
	I even had a professional surveyor comment on that video to confirm that they do correct for Earth curvature.
	Despite all of that though, there are still Flat Earthers that say surveyors don't correct for earth curvature, and that water is flat and level, etc, etc.
	Now after that video, I actually had the head of a large surveying firm reach out to me privately to show me some more surveying material that they had that related to debunking Flat Earth.
	And it comes from a book called Surveying for Engineers.
	So I went and bought myself a copy.
	Nearly 600 pages long, and it is almost as brilliant for learning as Brilliant.org.
	Brilliant has hundreds of classes covering topics across maths, science and computing.
	I've been using it now for months.
	In fact, at the time of me recording this, I'm currently up to a 98-day continuous streak.
	Each class teaches you the principles of a topic with interactive animations that I personally find makes it a lot easier to understand concepts.
	It's very relaxed as well.
	If you get a question wrong, it's not a problem.
	It breaks it down step by step on how to tackle a question so you know for next time.
	But for the more competitive amongst you, they've recently introduced leagues.
	You earn experience points for correctly solving problems, and the 15 people in each league who earn the most experience points for a given week will advance on to the next league.
	I'm currently on track to advance out of the Titanium League.
	So if you want to come and join me, then head on over to brilliant.org forward slash Dave McKeegan to pick up a 30 day free trial.
	And be quick, because the first 200 people to do so can have 20% off an annual subscription.
	Like I said, this is Surveying for Engineering, which is about 600 pages that looks at...
	Well, I'll just quote the back of the book.
	The text covers engineering surveying up to the end of most second year degree courses in civil engineering, building and construction, and is suitable for BTEC courses from Level 3.
	It's written by John Urine and Bill Price.
	John Urin is a Senior Lecturer and currently Deputy Head in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Leeds, where he also obtained his PhD in Civil Engineering.
	Bill Price is a Principal Lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Brighton.
	He obtained his MSc in Land Surveying from University College London.
	Both authors have written several books and contribute frequently to journals associated with land and engineering surveying.
	There's been five editions of Surveying for Engineering.
	It was first published back in 1978, with a second edition then following in 1985.
	This is the third edition that was published in 1994.
	It was followed by the fourth edition in 2006, and then lastly a fifth edition in 2010.
	Each new edition is intended as an update to keep up with new equipment and new practices and it covers everything from understanding how to set up the equipment, how to use it, how to interpret the data and so much more.
	Essentially this is a book written by surveyors for the purpose of training new surveyors.
	It's not called How to Lie About the Shape of the Earth and it contains several sections that are rather damning to flat earthers and it's been in circulation for 45 years.
	So let's jump straight into Chapter 2, Leveling.
	Section 2.1, Level and Horizontal Lines.
	Now flat earthers will say that level means flat and that water finds its own level, so therefore water and subsequently the earth is flat.
	Now quote, the term level line and horizontal line are used frequently in leveling and need to be carefully defined.
	A level line or surface is defined as a line along which all points are the same height.
	Because the earth is curved, level lines are also curved as shown in figure 2.1.
	A horizontal line is one which is normal to the direction of gravity at a particular point, such as P in Figure 2.2.
	Horizontal lines or surfaces are therefore tangential to level lines at individual points.
	So, what this means is that a horizontal line is a line that is perpendicular to the vertical line at any given point, and because the Earth is curved, then the vertical lines of two different locations won't be perfectly parallel to each other.
	And so the horizontal lines won't perfectly align with each other either.
	This is the basis of the Theodolite demonstration, which I've included in my other video.
	Put a theodolite and a target on either side of a lake and set them to the same height above the waterline.
	If the lake is flat, then the horizontal measurement of the theodolite would mean it was pointing straight at the target.
	If the lake is curved, the target would sit below horizontal, which is what happens.
	A level line, by comparison, is judged as a line of which is equal height above mean sea level.
	And because the Earth isn't flat, then a level line doesn't match a horizontal line.
	The book then does expand on this further and highlights that, quote, For most survey work the difference between a horizontal line and level line, called curvature, is small enough to be ignored and can be assumed that level and horizontal lines are the same.
	Now before Flat Earthers rejoice and think then that they must be the same, let's get into section 2.17 which it highlights.
	This is Errors in Leveling.
	Specifically, the effects of curvature and refraction on levelling.
	So it talks about the calculations for correcting for curvature, and then highlights that the deviation between horizontal and level is very small at distances under 120 meters, which is usually the sort of maximum distance that they would have between points used for levelling.
	But that curvature and refraction can't be ignored when calculating heights using theodolites as per section 3.11, which is height measurements by the theodolites, also known as trigonometrical heighting.
	This goes into explaining how you can measure the elevation angle above a horizontal line with a theodolite, and then work out the height of an object.
	A process similar to a demonstration I've done in response to a certain flat earther, who has subsequently since then tried twisting it and repeatedly claiming that I've proven the earth is flat, because apparently you can't measure angles from a curved surface.
	Well, these two pages completely debunk that notion, showing how surveyors measure angles based off a horizontal line from their position, but then correct for the fact that their horizontal position is not the same as the horizontal position for the target's location, by including some fancy-looking maths to correct for the amount of earth curve between the two locations.
	As stated here, FG equals D squared divided by 2R, where R is the average radius of the Earth between points A and B. Confirming that we can measure angles on a curved surface, because if you know the radius of that curved surface, you can correct for it.
	And before any flat earthers claim that they're presupposing the R value, The very fact that using that particular R-value produces consistently accurate results in any application it's used in, validates that that value is correct.
	If we tried using an R-value of 3,000 or 10,000 kilometers instead, the results that we got would become more and more inaccurate as distances increased.
	They apply more corrections based on Earth's radius as well.
	Section 5.23 looks at scale factor.
	This actually ties in rather nicely to another video I did recently about flat maps not being accurate.
	It states, as outlined in section 1.5, all ordnance survey maps and plans in Great Britain are based on a rectangular coordinate system known as the National Grid.
	For anyone unfamiliar, Ordnance Survey is the national mapping agency of the UK.
	First founded back in 1791 and through the 1800s it began surveying the entire United Kingdom in detail to produce Ordnance Survey maps.
	Even having Parliament in 1841 introduce the Ordnance Survey Act to allow surveyors the right to enter properties for the purpose of surveying the land within them.
	Nowadays they sell these maps that cover the entirety of the United Kingdom in various scales right the way down to one to two and a half thousandth.
	And they've divided the UK into two lettered grid squares that are 500 kilometers by 500 kilometers.
	to give area codes for their maps, which they call the National Grid.
	And surveying for engineers states that the National Grid is derived from a map projection which is a transverse Makator projection with an origin of 2 degrees west and 49 degrees north.
	A map projection provides a means of representing the curved surfaces of the earth on a plane surface that coordinate grids that can then be defined and maps drawn.
	So what this means is that because the regular Makator map of the world centers around the equator, the UK is quite high up and so rather stretched out top to bottom.
	As the National Grid is only focusing on the UK, they've used a Makita view of the UK but based it around a much higher latitude to reduce the amount of distortion.
	Quote, "...in forming the National Grid, the relative positions of points on the grid are altered slightly from their ground positions as a result of using the transverse Makita projection to account for the curvature of the Earth." Therefore, distances calculated from the National Grid Coordinates will not, in some cases, agree with the equivalent measured on site.
	This means, despite them using a Makita focused on the UK to reduce the distortion, it doesn't completely remove the distortion.
	Which can then be a problem for things like surveying, where accuracy is paramount.
	To convert measured distances to projection distances, the measured distance is converted to its equivalent at mean sea level and the scale factor used as follows.
	Grid distance equals measured distance times scale factor.
	Now that formula is pretty basic.
	If you have a scaled down version of something, like a model, you can measure the size of the model, multiply it by the scale of the model, and work out how big the original thing actually is.
	However, crucially, the book states, quote, the value of the scale factor varies across the country.
	Now, if the Earth were flat, and the map is flat, then the whole map would be a uniform scale.
	The fact that the flat map has a varying scale across it proves that that map is distorted because it's trying to use a flat plane to display a different shape.
	They then show how surveyors can calculate an accurate scale factor for their location, the formula of which, again, uses an Earth radius value.
	We know surveying is incredibly accurate, because if it wasn't, then huge engineering projects wouldn't work.
	And yet, surveyors are trained to account for curvature of the Earth.
	If the Earth were flat, then correcting for curvature that didn't exist would completely screw up their data.
	And yet OS maps are some of the most accurate maps around, even though they say they're not 100% accurate.
	I actually managed to find an online PDF version of the latest 5th edition of this book, and being PDF it allows you to search for specific words.
	The words curvature or curve appear almost 1400 times throughout the book.
	Three times specifically stating the phrase earth curvature and once stating earth is curved.
	The word flat appears 30 times throughout the entire book.
	The words flat earth or earth is flat appear precisely zero.
	I mean it states the word globe more times than that.
	So, publicly available training material for surveyors shows that they're taught to account for earth curvature, and we all know how incredibly accurate surveying is.
	Which either means that the real world that these people are surveying conforms to their processes of correcting for earth curvature, or surveyors are all part of the conspiracy, and when you become a surveyor, they let you in on the plot and tell you to ignore everything that you've been taught.
	Maybe some flat earth that should take a course in surveying and see how that pans out.
	Anyway that is going to wrap it up for today.
	I must say thanks to the professional surveyors who reached out to me about this stuff and thanks again to Brilliant.org for sponsoring this video.
	If you've enjoyed this and you haven't already done so then please consider hitting the like and subscribe buttons and hopefully Yeah, go ahead now, David and Austin, yours.
	I have a quick comment, then I'll let Austin go.
	And this was the exact video I asked that we didn't waste 20 minutes on when we talked previously, and you said you didn't know what video I was talking about.
	So, surveying works because level is horizontal, and there's no tool or process in construction to establish a curved level as level Levels established horizontal.
	So all horizontals are parallel, right?
	And then one other thing, you had shown this, I figured this might become a next, where you show that the continent sizes are all different.
	The dark areas are the true or supposedly true continent sizes.
	But if you compare those sizes to the map that we're using, and we don't really have a solid map, but all of these sizes fit They're the same as here, so there's something to it.
	Now, we listened to the 20-minute Dave McKeegan video, which was torturous.
	Many of our ears are bleeding.
	100 people dropped off.
	But Austin's going to explain some new information.
	Hopefully, you're willing to listen to it.
	Go ahead, Austin.
	David, I don't tell you what arguments to make, and you don't tell me what arguments to make.
	I didn't know you were talking about this video, but I like this video.
	It's quite brilliant.
	Yes.
	It makes any number of important distinctions that matter to the construction of buildings that would fail if they did not take into account Earth's curvature.
	That is my response.
	Awesome.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, that's factually all incorrect.
	And that's why this guy refuses to debate me, by the way, which I've debated actual surveyors about this very subject.
	So maybe everyone should check out the survey debate that I did where I helped inform him of his own profession.
	But let's cover some of the basics here.
	So when we do engineering, we actually use plain survey.
	We never use geodetic surveying ever.
	In fact, we can't build bridges, railways, runways, buildings or anything.
	without assuming the earth is flat now all survey manuals will tell you that up to 100 square miles 100 square miles not 120 meters 100 square miles you have to assume that the earth is flat completely neglect any notion of curvature so like you said they said oh well it's good enough It's such, it's so close that we can just treat it like it's flat.
	Well, no, you have to treat it like it's flat.
	So you establish a vertical plumb line that's perpendicular to the earth, which is a plane.
	He's saying, well, you can just treat it like that, but it's really curved.
	And then you measure different distances, assuming a plane, assuming levels horizontal, and then you compile these together horizontally up to a hundred square miles.
	And that's actually how we do engineering factually.
	So what they do with geodetic surveying is they assume the Earth's sphere, they take the plane survey data, they stitch it together over long distances, and then they apply an r-value, okay?
	That they assume.
	That's right, they assume it, just like he said.
	But then he said, no, yeah, we assume it, but evidence that it's correct is that we apply this number and it works Always, every single time, no matter what we apply it to.
	Objectively incorrect also, which is why guys like this make a living off of lying.
	They have to lie and they can't debate me live because I would expose them.
	So they ask to lie in an edited video reading the script.
	So in reality what happens is if you actually treated it as a radius value that was a thousand miles bigger, the numbers would match reality better.
	Because consistently, they apply what's called a terrestrial refraction correction, which is 7 over 6R, and actually increases the radius value 15% as a default.
	So what they do, and again, I have a debate with a surveyor, that's a geodetic surveyor, we go in detail about this, they actually go out, they take all the plane survey data, they stitch it together, and then they look into a certain distance, say 20 miles away, the way they know it's 20 miles is the flat Earth measurements, and then they say, okay, where is it supposed to be if the Earth's a globe?
	And then they create a window, a predetermined window.
	It's called a tolerance.
	And any measurement that falls outside that window, they just throw them out.
	And it happens all the time.
	I asked him, well, what would happen if you didn't throw those out?
	He said, oh, the radius value would be way too big.
	Okay, so that's called begging the question in a Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
	It's fundamentally illogical and laughably incompetent.
	It doesn't prove anything.
	So then they throw all the data out that doesn't match their assumption in their predetermined window.
	And then it gets even worse than that.
	They use what's called a weighted mean.
	So, that is, say you predict, the globe predicts 7, but the measurement shows 10, 5, 6, 7, 8.
	Well, then you would apply a heavier weight to the ones closer to 7 so that your final average would be closer to what you needed it to be.
	So, they throw all the data out that doesn't match because, quote-unquote, it would make the radius value way too big.
	Then they apply a weighted mean to that to actually make it match the globe, and it still doesn't.
	On top of that, they have to then Actually apply standard refraction and usually they only get within 85% accuracy is considered optimal.
	If they get within 85% accuracy of the assumed radius value then it works.
	So long story short, it's a big Texas sharpshooter fallacy which if anyone doesn't know that's like Drawing, that's like shooting at the wall and then going and drawing the target after you shoot, right?
	It's called, it's a fallacy.
	That doesn't in any way mean anything is empirical or reality.
	So again, in reality, the way we build runways, railways, bridges, everything, we have to make flat earth measurements completely neglect the notion of a curvature.
	It's not accounted for anywhere or we couldn't build buildings.
	So if we were to apply your same logic, then you've just proved flat earth.
	Because if you have to, if whatever we're using to build must be true, or we wouldn't be able to build things, then that means that the earth is flat.
	And this is provably the case.
	And that's why he had to cherry pick all the pages out of the book, and he had to misrepresent all of it and claim that the radius value always works.
	How about this?
	I'll publicly say right now, I bet him $5,000 that he won't sit on a debate with me and substantiate that claim because for a fact, it is not the case 100%.
	It doesn't match the radius value.
	So it's just begging the question.
	And every single thing we've heard in this entire debate has been begging the question.
	If I assume the Earth's a sphere, the sun must do this.
	If I assume the Earth goes around the sun, then this must be what causes the season.
	If I assume the Earth's a ball, then this must be what we do whenever we establish measurements.
	And since the video was so long, I'm going to keep going.
	The video was so long, dude.
	It was so long.
	This is what's annoying is because it's misinformation, dude.
	Everything in that video is misinformation.
	We establish television.
	The same claim could be made if Every damn assertion you just made, Austin, I find it highly objectionable.
	You disagree with him.
	He's talking about surveying work, a book that's been around for 45 years that's making a practical difference to surveyors actually constructing buildings.
	You're differing.
	That means one, you can't both be speaking what is true.
	One of you must be false, but it doesn't mean that either one of you is a liar, a liar.
	He is lying.
	He's lying.
	He's lying.
	He's not lying, and I really find it offensive that you would be so arrogant as to make that claim.
	I don't like it, Austin.
	I'm telling you right now.
	What's funny is, you know what's funny, Jim?
	He would make fun of you for challenging the moon landing.
	He would make fun of you for challenging Sandy.
	He would clown you for challenging the moon landing.
	You don't seem to know who that guy is.
	You don't know him.
	You don't know him.
	He wouldn't make fun of you.
	You have no manners, no decorum.
	You're excessively aggressive.
	You interrupted me.
	I want you to let us talk when it's our turn.
	We don't have time to assess.
	You interrupted me.
	I want you to let us talk when it's our turn, Jim.
	If he's going to remain on this program, he's going to have to show some deference to what's going on here and not make absurd claims like lying.
	Jim, Jim, Jim, listen.
	Don't do that.
	Jim, Jim, Jim, let me say something.
	He can stay, he can back up his claims.
	Okay.
	Hold on, Jim.
	Let me, let me finish what I'm saying.
	It's our turn to talk.
	You made all, a whole bunch of false claims.
	I gave you your turn to talk!
	No, you played a 20 minute video.
	We're not even 10 minutes into our reply.
	Okay.
	You played a 20 minute video that we knew.
	All you had to do is say, you know of this video, can you respond to it?
	We didn't need to listen to it, but that's okay.
	You want to play it?
	That's fine.
	All right.
	So we're trying to respond.
	We're giving you facts, and we can prove that he's lying, right?
	And the other thing is- He's not lying!
	I can't tell you enough how objectionable I find that.
	He sincerely believes everything he said.
	If he sincerely believes everything he said, he might be wrong, but he's not lying!
	No, I've corrected him, and he's been corrected.
	And you're claiming he's a liar is itself a lie, because you have to know- Jim, let me ask you a question.
	If somebody corrects you- I'm really offended by this.
	Jim, listen, if somebody corrects you, shows you evidence, and you ignore it and continue to say... That's because you're begging the question by assuming you're right.
	Frankly, I believe he's entitled to his opinion and that he's right and that you're asserting he's wrong and that he's lying are thereby lying.
	So... Let Austin continue.
	I am doing my best to give a free An open and balanced opportunity to discuss these issues.
	You interrupted me.
	Take a couple more minutes if you want on this, but I'm not happy.
	Okay, so the way I know that he's not being particularly honest is because he's actually been confronted with it.
	So he's been shown that it's not true, and then he went and made a video and omitted the evidence to present a narrative that's misleading to people, that requires intention, which is the definition of lying.
	We can disagree that he's lying, okay?
	But he is spreading misinformation, that's for sure.
	The way that we establish elevation, the way we establish elevation is we measure a vertical distance A vertical distance above the perpendicular horizontal baseline.
	That's how we measure elevations.
	Has nothing to do with the curved earth.
	I am literally, I can pull up the government's official engineering site right now that says for up to 100 square miles, all engineering assumes that the earth is flat and uses plain survey.
	All of it.
	It is not in any way... How can you build a bridge assuming the Earth is curved?
	He said it himself that you have to... It's curved.
	You just can't tell.
	It's close enough.
	So, in reality, plane surveys how we get maps, distances, how we do engineering.
	The globe claims, oh, well, if we stitch them all together over a distance, I promise it would be curving.
	Let me actually change the radius by 15%, assume a fraction, assume the curvature, throw out all the other measurements, cook the books, and then if I get within 80%, somehow that proves that the earth's the ball and then they hijacked the horizon which is optical and claimed that it's physical and everything that I'm saying is a fact and that's why we have to assume the earth is flat to get elevation and that's why we have to assume the earth is flat to build things because if you assumed it was a globe it wouldn't work These are all facts.
	That's why I get very frustrated by videos like that.
	The same guy who says anyone that denies the moon landing is a complete idiot.
	They should be censored and all this stuff.
	Yeah, that's right.
	I don't like people like that.
	I don't like people that misrepresent information once it's been presented to them.
	So if we can get into the actual empirical evidence of it, that would be cool.
	But begging the question at the Earth's sphere and then making calculative assumptions is not science.
	It's not empirical.
	It's effectively a religion.
	All right, Jim, let's move on.
	Those all could be said of you and David and your belief in a flat earth.
	Now, I'm interested in having an exchange of views.
	But calling someone who disagrees with you a liar is offensive and unacceptable.
	And I'm objecting to it.
	All right, Jim, let's move on.
	Let's move on.
	Let's move on.
	Climate cream.
	Here's another argument.
	Imagine, and it's related.
	Imagine a vast plain with but one tree smack in the middle.
	If the earth were flat, your vision would extend exactly as far while standing at the base of the tree as it would at the top of the tree.
	However, the further you climb, the farther your line of sight will extend to the horizon.
	No one has any doubt about it.
	That's because parts of Earth that were concealed from view by its curvature are now revealed because your position has changed.
	Travel through or within different time zones.
	According to a 2008 paper in Applied Optics by David K. Lynch, The curvature of Earth becomes somewhat visible at an elevation of 35,000 feet with a greater than 60 degree field of vision and more easily visible at an elevation of 50,000 feet.
	So if you're on the right commercial flight, you might be able to see the curvature of Earth with your own two eyes.
	I have.
	I have seen it.
	In the event that you're not high enough, though, you can still experience the curvature of Earth another way.
	For example, if you were to fly all the way around the world, you'd find that it would be a nightmare, nighttime in parts of the world and daytime in other parts.
	In that way, the existence of time zones itself is proof Earth is round.
	Taken another way, you wouldn't even need to travel through different time zones.
	Time zones are wide enough that you will see the sun rising or setting later in the western part of a time zone than in the eastern.
	According to the Farmer's Almanac, the sun will rise and set roughly four minutes later for every 70 miles you drive from east to west.
	If you wanted to combine this experiment with a previous, you can note how much more of Earth you can see when you begin your ascent into the air than you can while you're sitting on the tarmac waiting to take off.
	Or watch a sunset.
	Pick a nice spot from which you can watch a sunset.
	Call it point A. Ideally, to have a clear horizon in front of you.
	And behind would be some sort of elevated point.
	You can quickly access a hill, a building with at least two floors, perhaps the aforementioned tree.
	We'll call this point B. Watch the sunset from point A, and once the sun is out of sight, hurry over to point B.
	With the added elevation provided by Point B, you should be able to see the sun above the horizon.
	If Earth were flat, the sun would not be visible at any elevation once it had set.
	Because Earth is round, the sun will come back into your line of sight.
	If you don't have a hill, you can even try lying on your stomach to watch the sunset and then stand up to get a higher point of view.
	And here's a nice one.
	I think you're going to like this one.
	Okay, I want to make a simple video showing a way that you can verify that the Earth is indeed round, and I'm going to talk you through my reasoning.
	Here we go.
	If you just looked at the Northern Hemisphere, you can see there's not a whole lot of difference, because the The Flat Earth model shows the Northern Hemisphere in the center, and it's not very different.
	But if you look at the Southern Hemisphere, now the what's called the Southern Ocean, which goes around Antarctica, now becomes this huge ring which encompasses all of what we call the Northern Hemisphere, right here.
	So it should be easy to find differences between places that are in the Southern Hemisphere, and one way you can do that is with By looking at a Mercator map, which stretches out things equally from the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere to represent a round globe on a flat surface, but in a very different way than the Flat Earth model.
	The way I'm going to do that is by looking at two round-the-world trips, one in the Northern Hemisphere going from Shanghai to Los Angeles, to New York City, to Dubai, and back to Shanghai, versus around the world trip from Sydney, Australia, Santiago, Chile, Sao Paulo, Brazil, Johannesburg, and then back to Sydney.
	And on the Flat Earth model, it's pretty easy to tell that it would be a much, much longer trip doing this in the Southern Hemisphere between these cities in red, versus the much shorter trip in the Northern Hemisphere.
	On the Mercator projection map, the trips look about equal, because they're both about the same distance from the equator, and I tried to pick routes that would keep about the same distance from the equator.
	So on a round-earth model, you expect the times to be about the same, while in the flat-earth model, the southern hemisphere round-the-world trip should take a lot longer.
	So what I did is, you can check this yourself, I used the website Kayak, and I mapped out All eight of these trips.
	The four in the Northern Hemisphere and the four in the Southern.
	Here example is Sydney to Santiago, Chile.
	And going from Sydney to Santiago, Chile, it's between 12 and a half hours and 13 and a quarter hours.
	So I kind of averaged them out.
	And then I also looked at the reverse trip, which would be from Santiago to Sydney.
	That's longer because you're going against the prevailing headwinds there.
	And I mapped them all out, and Shanghai to Los Angeles, Los Angeles JFK, here we go.
	And the total for that trip would be about 40 hours and 58 minutes.
	In the Southern Hemisphere, which the Flat Earth model, which says should take much, much longer, actually is slightly less, a little less, about an hour less.
	So, which makes no sense in a Flat Earth model.
	So, here are the times all written out, if you want to pause this and take a look at those times.
	And check them all you want, if you'd like.
	One, just as an example, if you just want to look at a couple, from New York to Dubai and Sydney to Santiago, on this map, it looks about right.
	They look about the same distance, and sure enough, they should take about the same amount of time.
	But on the Flat Earth model, there's no way that the Sydney to Santiago trip should take just 10 minutes more than New York to Dubai.
	If you were to measure this out, put your hand up to the screen, and you'll see that it's actually twice as long a line, the red one here.
	If you want to check something even easier, from Los Angeles to Sydney on a Flat Earth model should take much less than going from Sydney to Santiago, right?
	It looks like maybe seven hours on this map, but in fact, if you actually look up the I like that.
	I think it's very telling.
	Stop playing these ridiculous long videos.
	I average it out, and it comes out to 14 hours and 32 going both directions.
	I cut it in half.
	So why, on a flat-earth model, can you explain, would it take longer to go from Los Angeles to Sydney than it would take going from Santiago, Chile, to Sydney?
	I like that.
	I think it's very telling.
	Your thoughts, David?
	Yeah, so the simple answer to some of that is if a grandma was driving from Connecticut to Salt Lake City, and I'm driving from Connecticut to California, and I got there first, does that mean the Earth is a globe?
	Okay.
	No, I'm driving faster.
	And if we actually look at some plane routes, some southern plane routes, here's the thing, Jim.
	In the Northern Hemisphere, any—listen carefully—any northern airport going to any other northern airport never ever crosses the equator.
	You hear that?
	When flying from any two locations, from any northern airport to any other northern airport, never do they dip below the equator.
	The same should be true, there should be symmetry.
	If we live on a globe, southern airport to another southern airport should never go above the equator.
	But when we actually look, we have these crazy trips where we go all the way up, right?
	And then all the way down, when you look at it on a flat earth map, it's pretty much a straight line.
	Let's look at another one, okay?
	And here is...
	This is from Sydney to Lima, Peru, stops in Los Angeles, right?
	It goes here, all the way up to Los Angeles, and all the way down.
	Look at it on a flat earth map, it's a straight line, right?
	And there's countless of these, they make no explanation of why are southern flights going deep into the north.
	To get there.
	But when you look at them on a flat earth map, they all make perfect sense.
	Why are we going all the way up and all the way down?
	Why don't we just go across here?
	This looks even shorter on the globe because it's a straight line this way, right?
	And the simple answer to that is, well, there are hubs and they got to drop off passengers and all sorts of stuff.
	But when you actually look at it, there's what happens is, Jim, there's emergency landings happen all the time.
	People die suddenly on airplanes.
	Right.
	And they have to land.
	Here's one where they they went a thousand miles out of the way to Seattle.
	They got there in like 15 minutes.
	But if you look at it, Seattle is right on that track.
	Right.
	Another one.
	They went to Moscow.
	I think it was fifteen hundred miles out of their way to go to Moscow, according to where the plane said they were.
	But Moscow is directly on that route on a flat earth map.
	Again, here's another one.
	They went to Moscow.
	Moscow is directly on when you draw a straight line.
	It's really weird how all of the points go directly on there.
	And here's one I just want to point out, which is one of my favorites, is this flight was going from Hong Kong, they were going to the UK, 12 hours, and the whole family flying together, Jim.
	Mother, father, little kids, they're all sitting together.
	Mom dies suddenly.
	She's dead.
	No reviving her, right?
	Four hours into the flight, around here, the mother died.
	Why didn't they stop at any one of these airports?
	And if you look, there's dozens and dozens and dozens of them.
	And the answer is the following.
	Because on a flat Earth map, four hours later, they were over Russia.
	And if we landed in Russia and Russia was very helpful, that could spark peace.
	We don't want that.
	And two, people say, what the heck are we doing flying over Russia?
	Right?
	And that's why they didn't do it.
	Again, there's dozens and dozens of these emergency landings.
	That makes no sense whatsoever.
	Emergency happened here, went all the way up to Seattle.
	Look, Seattle's right on the plane route.
	Everything's right on the plane route.
	Here's a shot, here's one from New York to Auckland, New Zealand.
	Right about here, emergency.
	They went all the way over here to Fiji.
	Why the heck would they go all the way over there?
	Why didn't they just continue?
	Because if you look at it, New York, Fiji, New Zealand.
	Fiji's not over here, right?
	Here's a close-up.
	New York, Fiji's right on that line, right?
	So when you look at these southern routes, they make no sense.
	Northern routes make perfect sense, right?
	But northern routes do a little weird thing also.
	They take this big curve.
	Let me just show you one.
	This is L.A.
	to Beirut.
	All right.
	And it says, OK, L.A., we go all the way up here.
	We're taking the Earth curve.
	We're following the Great Circle route, which is weird.
	That's not the Great Circle route.
	And we go over here, Newfoundland and Greenland.
	And we come all the way over.
	But if you look at it on a flat Earth map, it's a straight line.
	Newfoundland, Greenland, it's a straight line.
	Why is it a straight line every time?
	Why do airplanes fly straight and level over the earth plane?
	Why do airplanes never account for dip?
	If an airplane's flying at 500 miles an hour for an hour, it would have to nose down a mile every two minutes to follow the curve, but that never happens.
	It never happens.
	Right?
	Why, you know, the gyroscope keeps the plane level.
	It says, okay, level's here.
	It doesn't pay attention to gravity.
	So as the plane turns up down, the gyroscope stays level with the horizon.
	Well, if it's flying over, you know, all the way over, how come it doesn't process?
	And it doesn't process at all.
	One more thing I'll show you, you know, reality versus Reality versus, well, this is the flight.
	There's to be 500 miles of curvature, but the airplane's flying straight level.
	Now, you can claim, well, I don't think that they would see it.
	You know, I don't think that they would see it.
	I'm looking for another one.
	Where is it?
	Oh, here it is.
	So this one right here, and we have a more in-depth video on it.
	This is going from Beirut, I think, down to South America, right?
	So as he's diving over the globe, these stars should be precessing upwards.
	Google Earth says, hey, if you're going to fly over, we do a little simulated flight on Google Earth.
	Let's see.
	Google Earth shows these stars rotating up as you're diving over the curve.
	Right?
	So a simulation, math, proves, says that this should happen, but reality shows something else.
	Airplanes fly straight level over North Plain, Austin.
	No, yeah, I mean that like the very functionality of planes themselves.
	I know many, many pilots.
	They all know the Earth is flat.
	They fly over the speed of sound 10 feet above the ocean for hours at a time.
	They don't account for curvature.
	Everyone knows you have to fly a plane like it's flat.
	Uh, and then the gyroscope also debunks that as curving.
	When it comes to the southern routes, like, actually, if you look into it, it's easy to debunk the entire argument because people use flight radar, 24-7 flight radar, and then it gives you a speed to determine the time it takes to go.
	And it's normally around 500 miles per hour.
	That's what's called airspeed.
	We actually know that there's something called jet streams.
	And whenever you catch these jet streams, you can go over 800, 850 miles per hour, if not greater.
	This is documented, as in your ground speed would be 800 miles per hour, but your airspeed would still be 500 miles per hour, because the plane actually determines airspeed relative to the static pressure around the plane.
	So it doesn't determine how much ground you're covering.
	So why does 24-7 flight radar, where everyone builds these strawmans against flat earth, How come no one accounts for the actual ground speed in the jet streams?
	It never changes.
	It always shows 500 miles per hour, but we know for a fact that's not true.
	So that's a major component of all of this.
	The planes go faster and slower depending on what direction relative to the jet streams, which are provable.
	The plane will take three hours longer in one direction than the other direction from the same two locations.
	So that's the primary confusion with the Southern flight routes that always gets brought up.
	It never gets addressed, what I just said though.
	So really the fun, this is, I want to make this point.
	Every situation has been this, and this is what the whole Flat Earth discussion is.
	The basic default position is that we have to treat it like the Earth is flat and stationary.
	For the engineering, the measurements, everything.
	For sea level, for the planes.
	Planes have to fly like the Earth is flat and stationary, right?
	And then they're making emergency landings as if the Earth is flat.
	Right?
	But, coincidentally, actually, all of it's an illusion, and the exact opposite's true, and the Earth is tilted, wobbling, three different wobbles, spinning, revolving around the Sun.
	You just can't prove any of it.
	You can't see the curve.
	You can't measure the motion.
	You can't detect what's going around.
	So, if we're actually going to apply logic, well, yeah, of course, if the Earth was flat, we would have to fly planes like the Earth was flat.
	Right.
	So that's why we do that.
	So we're going to claim that it's the opposite.
	We need evidence for it.
	And we never get any actual evidence.
	It's just begging the question as if somehow they can shift the burden over to flat earthers when we're the ones that have the evidence.
	We fly the plane like it's flat.
	So I think it's hilarious that someone defending the globe would ever bring up a plane because it's terrible for them.
	Go ahead, go ahead.
	Real quick point.
	The SR-71 at the speed it flies would have to drop 80 stories every second to follow the curve.
	80 stories.
	That's almost as high as the World Trade Towers.
	Every second it would have to drop that much just to follow the curve.
	And they don't.
	They fly straight and level over the earth plane.
	Go ahead, Jim.
	Well, what you call straight and level, it's all affected by gravity.
	I mean, it appears they're flying.
	It's a horizontal versus level line the guy explained in the video you don't like.
	And if you could find one pilot who doesn't recognize Earth as a globe, I'd be dumbfounded.
	Okay, I have a video of... There's dozens online, Jim.
	There's hundreds.
	Hundreds, Jim.
	Measure shadows across the country.
	Pick two locations some distance apart, at least a couple hundred miles from one another on the same meridian.
	Wrap two sticks or dowels or other objects of equal length.
	Two tape measures and a friend.
	Each of you take one stick, dowel, object and one tape measure to your location.
	Stick the object into the ground and measure the shadow.
	For accuracy, you should both take your measurements at the same time of day.
	On a flat Earth, the shadow cast by each would be the same length.
	However, if you and your friend compare notes, you'll find one shadow was longer than the other.
	That's because, due to curvature of Earth, The sun will hit one part of Earth at one angle and another at a different angle, even at the same time of day.
	This experiment has been around since 240 BC, when the Greek mathematician Eratosthenes compared the shadows cast in both Serene, now Aswan, Egypt, and Alexandria on the summer solstice.
	Eratosthenes had learned of a well in Cyrene where once a year on the summer solstice, the sun would illuminate the entire bottom of the well, and tall buildings and other objects would not cast a shadow.
	However, he noticed shadows were being cast on the summer solstice in Alexandria, so he measured the angle in the shadow and found it to be an angle of about 7.2 degrees.
	Google International Space Station photos, of course.
	Look at some of the amazing photos.
	We have doubts about NASA.
	I don't doubt these specific photos.
	Sometimes seeing is believing, and one's own research can be the best evidence, whether that's taking the time to do your own investigating or simply searching for the results of others who have run their own experiments.
	Here's a guy who built his own rocket.
	Jim, Jim!
	Let's tie your spot!
	There you go.
	There you can see her.
	It's Kermit.
	You're already there.
	Yeah.
	Go ahead.
	Go ahead.
	So, Jim, I want you to really pay attention here.
	In the heliocentric model, the Sun is infinitely far away, 93 million miles, and we have straight rays.
	So here's the heliocentric model.
	Here's Eratosthenes.
	Look carefully.
	Here's his stick.
	There's no shadow.
	His buddy over here has a vertical stick, vertical to where he is, and there's a shadow.
	That's what you're explaining with Eratosthenes.
	Well, here on a flat Earth, we have a small local Sun.
	Okay, here's Eratosthenes, here's his buddy, and there's a shadow.
	There's a length of a shadow.
	You can do math to figure out the sphericity of this flat area, right?
	No one's ever seen parallel rays.
	They don't come in parallel.
	Our sun is very small and very local, right?
	And you can do this at home, right?
	Get a couple batteries, lighters, bottles, whatever.
	Put a light over this one.
	This one's got a long shadow.
	This one's got a short shadow.
	Does that mean that this table is spherical?
	OK, so Eratosthenes is off the table.
	You've misunderstood the story of Eratosthenes.
	And then the next one you said was that you believe you don't believe in NASA, but for some reason you believe that those photos, that those photos are real.
	So what we're going to look at, you know, NASA doesn't even claim that's a real photo, but we're going to we're going to look at.
	We're going to look at some photos.
	Let me just find it real quick.
	Here is the 2012 photo of Earth.
	This is one of the best ones that they have.
	And if we look at the this is a Mercator map, we look at it.
	It's exactly this.
	It's literally took this image off the Mercator map, posted it on a ball.
	And you have to believe that the rest of all of this land is on top is on the other side of that ball.
	Right.
	And so here's another here's another one from the International Space Station.
	Look at this Earth curve, Jim.
	It's amazing.
	But then look at this other photo of the same area.
	Something is wrong there.
	Something's wrong.
	So you're claiming that these photos, this is from the International Space Station.
	Amazing!
	Look at the curve.
	I see the curve.
	I see the atmosphere.
	It's nighttime.
	But if we look at these land features, it's this tiny little circle right here.
	This tiny little circle.
	So to claim that those are real is disingenuous, right?
	And here's the other side of the Earth.
	Here's the other side of the Earth.
	All of this that we're seeing here is here.
	So I thought when we showed just this, all of this was on the other side.
	But now we look at the other side, and we just have this, right?
	One more, and then I think we're done.
	Look at the beautiful Earth curve, and you got the selfie, you got the space station here.
	It's in this tiny little square right here, proving NASA is faking photos of Earth.
	You know NASA didn't go to the moon, but you believe they're taking pictures of Earth on the space station.
	Go ahead.
	Well, I'm open to it, but we have confirmation from other sources, like the amateur rocket.
	Pick it up.
	It went up 56 miles now.
	Six miles is about the altitude of a commercial flight.
	It was 50 miles higher, and you can clearly discern the curvature of, I explained before, or sought to, that on a large spherical object, local regions display the properties of a flat surface to a high degree of approximation.
	I submit that's what's happening here.
	And I would add the simplest evidence of Earth's rotation is the Foucault pendulum.
	You have a pendulum going back and forth, and Earth is rotating, and it moves in 24 hours.
	Check it out.
	There's one even at Griffith Park.
	Where were I?
	I want to thank you guys for coming on and laying out your position.
	But just because we have disagreements doesn't mean one of us is lying.
	And I take strong exception to Austin's implication regarding a guy the expert in surveying what he was reporting.
	Because so far as I can discern, he's spot on.
	So since I agree with him, is that supposed to make me a liar too?
	You're not a liar, Jim, and that guy's not an expert in surveying, he's a photographer.
	As a student of the history and philosophy of science who taught courses in logic and critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years, I emphasize this has been a wonderful illustration that if you adopt a position you believe absolutely has on the moving train that it's stationary and are willing to make sufficiently drastic alterations in your other beliefs, you can come up with a coherent view.
	But it is not the simplest account of what happened here.
	I turn to you, David, for a closing remark.
	Yours.
	My closing remark is that I only encourage you to go back and watch the video, watch the stuff that we have.
	You brought up peristaltes.
	I completely proved that wrong.
	We move on to the next thing.
	That was by moving the location of the sun arbitrarily close to Earth, or you wouldn't get that phenomenon.
	Just like we see it.
	There's no astronomer or physicist that would buy your argument for a minute, David.
	Correct.
	None of them would.
	Yeah.
	Austin, I want you to have a word here.
	Go.
	Go ahead, Austin.
	Yeah, so I'm going to be really honest.
	I mean, if we actually apply logic, every single thing presented was fallacious.
	Appeals to authority, appeals to consensus, affirming the consequent fallacy, or shifting the burden of proof fallacy, reification fallacy, sexist sharpshooter fallacies.
	And this is all the globe has.
	When you're trying to defend something... Back at you, Austin.
	Back at you.
	That's just absurd.
	That is absurd.
	I go through every argument from publicly available sources.
	It's all bona fide.
	It's all on the legit.
	So for you to come out with a massive... That's what you have to do.
	You have to accuse everyone else of being a liar, a phony, a fraud, wrong.
	Horseshit.
	Horseshit, Austin.
	I'm really insulted that you would make that kind of argument.
	Insulted.
	I want to thank you.
	I've had enough of Austin.
	I want to thank you for coming on.
	And I had hoped to have Paul come on to offer his thoughts, but I mean, we have done.
	If I'm asked about Flat Earth again, I'll explain.
	I gave it the office.
	All right, Jim.
	Thanks so much.
	Thanks.

▲