Speaker 1: (00:01)
[inaudible] flat earth report. [inaudible]
Speaker 2: (00:52)
okay. So, Hey, really quick here. I have a few minutes until we start this a debate between myself and fight the flat earth. So, uh, before we get started, I just want to run a couple things by you. First of all, um, Rachel Maddow, give her a shout out for that little sound bite. The flat earth report soundbite. She Sue, she's being sued for $10 million for saying that America news network is Russian propaganda.
Speaker 2: (01:21)
Just thought I'd bring that up. Okay. Takashi six nine. This whole trial is about to begin with is kidnapping. So what are they saying? Racketeering. He's raising money for his gang. Turns out the lawyer for his kidnapper says the whole thing has been faked. He faked his own kidnapping to sell records. And so you scroll down here and it just says he's about to drop an album. His album dummy boy was originally gonna be released in November of 2018 and he says he trolls every time he's about to drop an album. So you gotta get your buzz up. That's how you make money. It's, what is, what's the, is what the defendant's lawyer says. So basically, uh, yeah, Takashi six, nine, he took a selfie of himself all hurt in the hospital bed and all that fake, fake, fake. So you know, he's acting like a gang banger. Uh, for some reason here in, by acting, I mean literally it's just an act. Uh, for some reason he's got a flat earth map. So is Takashi six, nine a flat earth or he's got a flat earth map on his jacket.
Speaker 2: (02:28)
I think that's noteworthy. Go ahead and share the stream. Um, in just a few minutes here, I'm going to be joined by fight the flat earth. You may know of him. He's a anti flat earth, uh, debater, I guess you would call him. Bit of a polemicist kind of reminds me of an angry science teacher. Um, Brad Pitt who may or may not be Gary Durden. So check this out. So Brad Pitt is doing a bunch of space propaganda cause he's a sellout. Nothing new there, but I'm searching the term auto hoax in the news just to see what happens. You know how this term evolves because we're the ones who pretty much, you know, leaked it, kind of forced it. We're trying to force it into the news. So I'm searching auto hoax and I'm checking on news to see, you know, has it showed up in any meaningful sense?
Speaker 2: (03:25)
And what do you know? So this uh, paper in like that gets in Brazil says Brad Pitt deep faking as Gary board in hashtag black face and they cite my video. Now I think they call it a satire, but it's interesting here. So we've got deep faking in auto hoaxing making the news finally showing up in newspaper headlines. They take it as a satire, but I dunno, Gary dirt and Tyler Durden, Brad Pitt, it's not all that farfetched. It's, it's uh, not a stretch. When you look at some of the other ones that we may or may not have uncovered, you got to see the new one, which we'll do with later when I'm not debating the flat earth round earth thing, you wouldn't buy it. It's either Stephen Curry's wife is a completely real person. Ayesha Curry or it's Hannah Montana with a Tana. It's pretty obvious, but we'll get into that in a minute here. It looks like Eric Dubay came out and did a, did an interview. You guys see of recent. It is, he's wearing camouflage. It's kinda hard to seize on the right
Speaker 3: (04:36)
conversion, right? Yeah, right. Like yoga too, you know, exercise, how yoga means union or not. So yeah, I was like, Oh, getting together into, because you're always practicing duty duty for a while. Yeah. And social like industry,
Speaker 2: (04:51)
Eric Dubay so transcendent, you know, he can release all these videos about how the Jews are gonna take over the world and you've got to get back to Europe and defend the white land, make white babies. And yet he's still up there in Thailand. Just climbing trees and meditating, breathing, I mean, very inactive. Okay. So I'm like I said, um, we're on standby. I will be debating with fight the flat earth who believes we're on a spinning ball, that we came from monkeys. Dinosaurs are real, asteroids are scary. Global warming is real. Get your kids vaccinated, Chuck, that fluoride and all the rest to straight blue pill all the way, and you know I'm totally fine if disagreement, who wants to just be surrounded by people they agree with? 24 seven becomes an echo chamber. That's one of the reasons why we opened phones. It's one of the reasons why we refused to allow any agenda to get in the way of truth. Just as community often gets in the way of truth. So really quick here, fight the fight or is coming up in a minute to Kashi. Six nine faked his own kidnapping. The kidnappers lawyer admits it was a publicity stunt and he's wearing a flat earth map on his shirt.
Speaker 2: (06:12)
Probably these are fake tattoos. I wouldn't be surprised like I really wouldn't be surprised if these were faked hats. We're looking at deep fakes. This is what a deep fake looks like. Okay, so flattered. Crypto says magical gravity, so powerful. It holds oceans, yet we can walk freely. See, those are the types of arguments that fight the fighters will take apart. Like, Oh, I don't feel it spinning. Why would you, how many rounds per minute do you think the ball makes? Zero. It takes a whole freaking day to spin around. So of course you're not going to feel it a thousand miles per hour. Yeah, it sounds big. Thousand. But you know, we're talking about you being a speck on a massive ball. And so you have to also remember when you're even debating, they have their own rules. They have their model, which is internally consistent. And so arguing from incredulity doesn't work. Infinite Jack says, asks him about upside down buildings in one 80 a Maddie says, wait, wait, this is the MF or you're debating. He has faced at fake face. Tats. Yeah. We're saying they're fake. This is fight the flat earth.
Speaker 4: (07:22)
Okay.
Speaker 2: (07:25)
No, this is Takashi six, nine. The rapper who faked his own kidnapping, let me get a picture of fight to fight earth. Well, we have his logo here on the screen. It's basically, it's a fist with a metal, like, like steel, um, a plate that says FTF II and he's punching a hole through an equal distant as a muscle map. Freedom. Wait, says like your fake tattoos. Yup. I have tattoos. I was a, I was in Facebook prison for six months out of the last year. I got the tattoos to prove it. They're kind of ghetto, but we, you know, we uh, may do with what we had.
Speaker 2: (08:12)
Okay. Right now we're only on YouTube, so go ahead and share the stream. We're also in discord. If you post any memes or images that you think need to be, uh, broadcast to the world, drop them in the live chat and I'll make sure I highlight them. I do like to make an effort here to offend the offendable. Get offended. Okay, so here is so called Steven Curry's wife. I, you HSA Curry. Tell me that's not Hannah Montana. And look, we've been seeing a lot of these things. Um, okay. I think we're just ready here. So let's get back on.
Speaker 1: (08:58)
Okay. Tim, can you hear me?
Speaker 2: (09:00)
Yes, yes, I can hear you just fine. And I've got about, uh, 50 people here hanging out.
Speaker 5: (09:06)
Oh, excellent. Hello to you guys. Um, just about K story at two minutes and I'll start the stream. On my side.
Speaker 2: (09:11)
Okay. That sounds good. And so I'm just going to send everybody I think to your channel, but um, yeah. Okay, cool. Bye. Yes. Okay,
Speaker 5: (09:18)
I'll get, I'll give you a chance to, um, like promote your channel and stuff. Uh, introduce yourself to my subscribers and now let me start.
Speaker 2: (09:26)
Sounds good. All right. Thanks a lot. I'll see. Just a few moments.
Speaker 1: (09:29)
Okay.
Speaker 2: (09:32)
Okay. So it just occurred to me, um, one thing, I'm not using my headset and I'm not using my headset. Thank you. Uh, because we're using, um, uh, his phone system and it's using my microphone, my webcam that I don't use. It's like, so basically, I think the thing that's gonna make the most sense. Okay. There's our host is let's just go over to his page. I don't know if you, did you guys have audio in Facebook? I'm really sorry on YouTube. I know you don't in discord, did you have audio from fight the flat earth? Cause if you did on YouTube, you're good to go. You don't have to move. I'm gonna go ahead and kill a discords audio though. Okay. You did. Okay, great. Those of you on discord go to one of the YouTube live streams. Either fight the flat earth or go to mind. It's all good. Um, I'll put a link. I mean, you may or may not want to subscribe to him. It may or may not be your cup of tea. I mean, you know how I feel about this.
Speaker 5: (10:40)
Okay. I'm just getting going on my end. I'll take my intro and then introduce you.
Speaker 2: (10:44)
Excellent. Okay. Good to go. Excellent. Good to go.
Speaker 1: (10:53)
[inaudible]
Speaker 2: (11:06)
on the desk floating through space.
Speaker 1: (11:09)
[inaudible] [inaudible]
Speaker 5: (11:29)
Hey, I'm FDFP welcome back to the channel that tasty pity to the train tracks of knowledge Monday night. So it's Monday night, the debate time. And tonight I am joined by Tim Austin or the infinite plane society. So let's just start and Tim, welcome to the channel. Would you like to introduce yourself and tell people what you're about and why you think Europe is the shape that you think is,
Speaker 2: (11:50)
yeah. Thanks a lot for having me. Uh, my channel infinite plane. It's a meant to draw distinction between the flat earth society, which I think have come to too many conclusions without enough evidence. And so to me it's more like infinite possibilities. It's flat until proven otherwise. I don't a certain ice wall, I reject the notion of a dome and any biblical explanation, which is worse than pseudoscience. It's mysticism. So most of the so called flat earth community does not like what we do because we do not accept the biblical authority. And so, uh, my take on it is this, um, I arrive at not a conclusion but at the negation of the conclusion that we're on a ball because I don't trust those same authorities that the people who believe we are trust, I think there's plenty of reason to think we've been deep faked about science. And so for me, I'm going to need more evidence and I don't accept what I've been shown thus far.
Speaker 5: (12:45)
Okay. Thank you. So you're, your main reason for not accepting the, the main narrative is mistrust then, right?
Speaker 2: (12:53)
Yes, largely mistrust.
Speaker 5: (12:57)
Um, what about the, the fundamental forces of physics that, that we can understand and measure? Do you disagree with how they work? Like things like gravity and use centrifugal acceleration.
Speaker 2: (13:09)
I don't disagree with these things. I don't deny that they exist. I'm just saying that the explanations were given are probably skewed. So I'm not in denial of any of the things that you observe for I observe and moreover, I don't augment my reality with anything I can't observe. So for example, some people will say they can see the curve when they look at the horizon and I would say, well that's impossible. That's somebody imposing what they're expected to believe.
Speaker 5: (13:37)
Okay. Um, so what kinds of evidence would you accept to acknowledge that the world is, as we've been told,
Speaker 2: (13:47)
I would acknowledge it. It is as we've been told, if I were shown irrefutable evidence, one a curvature as in, um, curvature from high enough altitude brought to us by footage that's not presented to us from NASA or any of the existing space agencies. It's got to come from somebody that I consider to be impartial. Uh, barring that, I would like to see maybe contiguous ISS transits on the same night across multiple locations. That would be irrefutable, that would prove orbit. But, uh, right now I do not find the evidence compelling or satisfying and the lack of footage of a globe in space rotating is also troublesome. And then we're shown things like star man by space X and I see that as just an insult to our intelligence. That can't be real.
Speaker 5: (14:34)
Okay, well let's talk about star man and um, combat. That's quite an interesting topic. You know, a car in space. Well, um, it's cool. Where do you believe it or not? But, um, why don't you think that's possible?
Speaker 2: (14:47)
It's not that I don't think it's, um, impossible. I think that what we've been shown is clearly staged and there were a couple tells in the presentation, so it just looks to me like we were meant to accept it as real because maybe people haven't always been this critical with what they're shown from outer space. And also when I look at the thing it, there were a few things that bother me. One. There are these little bits of what appear to be bubbles accelerating vertically in front of him the whole time I'm told it spaced us. I have a problem with that. And then too, I have a problem with just how perfectly stable and level it is. There's no wobble and we don't see anything of the earth other than just blue. It's like planet water.
Speaker 5: (15:30)
Uh, okay. Well in regards to the wobble, you mean like from the camera's point of view, you don't see the car like shaking and stuff?
Speaker 2: (15:38)
I think it's just way too smooth, too perfect. Maybe a little too curated to be real. I think it should be flip in. There should be some rotation, something.
Speaker 5: (15:47)
Well with the cameras that you, they were bolted on to the car with a frame. So you're in, in relation to the car, the camera is always going to have a steady view,
Speaker 4: (16:00)
um,
Speaker 5: (16:03)
uh, in, in regards to the planet being just water. I mean that's probably just cause that was what it was over at this thing. Um, do you deny that the, uh, the physics that are possible for us to put that up there at all?
Speaker 2: (16:19)
Okay. I'll say this. I'll say that the whole system is internally consistent and if it's all real, if the ball is what they say, if Helio centrism is what they say, then yeah, that would be hypothetically possible. But right now I consider low earth orbit. To just be hypothetical. I don't believe that there's anything in low earth orbit and I don't think that there's any technology we're using right now that requires orbiting, uh, infrastructure up there, dangling shore high altitude. Sure. But orbiting, no.
Speaker 5: (16:50)
Okay. Um, I suppose it all comes down to, uh, talking about the library in a discussion like this. Um, one thing I always want me to ask you is who do you think is in on the truth? If the truth is that the earth is flat, who are the people that actually knew this?
Speaker 2: (17:09)
That's a very good question. It's an excellent, it's a, it's an excellent question because it's the whole thing about flat earth. The problem is it does presuppose a conspiracy. This couldn't be an accident. It could not be an omission. It's not that nobody noticed. If it is flat, then this is a deliberate, multisensory deception, which is a pretty huge claim. And I understand that. So if it is the case that people in the know would be a people high up in government and military on a need to know basis, um, and it would also be a pretty much a military secret. And it could also be, I mean, if you think about it, it might also be the, the, um, secret itself could be something handed down through the secret societies. I don't know if you believe in that stuff, but I'm just saying, you know, the military, you have security clearance as a higher up you go, that's a sin. That's a secret society in effect. And so I'm saying yes, secret societies have always been around. And so yeah, this whole theory does presuppose something, I can't say who I wouldn't point out a certain group or tribe or I think that's all red herring, but I think we're in a assistant that has an elite technocratic class that employees this, they distort our history to keep us more or less enslaved. And I think they distort our cartography the same way in our Cosmo graphy.
Speaker 5: (18:30)
So, um, how far do you think the conspiracy would have to go? Um, like how many people would have to notice you say like, uh, hire people we need to know basis in government, but um, what about, uh, pilots and air traffic controllers that work with technology? The, you know, we say relies on blue physics or are they in on the conspiracy as well? Or do they to the pilots just fly assuming they're flying on a ball or, you know, uh, are they lying to everybody as well?
Speaker 2: (19:04)
Right. I know what you mean. I hear this argument a lot. Like nine 11 couldn't be a conspiracy. Apollo 11 couldn't be because too many people would know you got 400,000 contractors with the moon landing. And so I think if you break it down as far as compartmentalizing it, um, the people who actually interface with the ball itself, like pilots don't even think about curve. I mean we're too small to even think about it. It's out of sight, out of mind. I don't think it would require that many people and there could easily be false explanations for what's in Antarctica. Why we don't go over there. I wouldn't assume a silly ice wall, but I don't necessarily assume it's um, what we've been told.
Speaker 5: (19:41)
Okay. Um, so about Antarctica, you say it's not a nice wall. Uh, do you think we've been to Antarctica? Do you think what, um, you know, you have the, the photo up South pole that has to be kind of moved every now and then to say in alignment and everything. Is that a real thing or is there no such thing as this as an Antarctica tool?
Speaker 2: (20:06)
That's a good question. It could be one of two things, in my opinion. Um, it could be perfectly reasonable to think that there is a continent, the shape and look vent Arctica where they say, I'm just suggesting that if it's flat, then that's just one part of a perimeter. There could be land all around. And so we're given the miss apprehension that that continent is at the bottom of a ball. I'm saying here that the whole idea of giving us a false model of a 25,000 miles or conference ball is to hide land and hide resources. That's what I think the bottom line is. I don't think there's a religious thing. I don't think it's God or Satan. I think it's simply a resources and land and a technocratic elite, uh, keeping us in a state of, uh, relative disempowerment.
Speaker 5: (20:50)
So, um, what happens if people want to go to Antarctica? Uh, w what would happen? For instance, if somebody was in a boat on their own and just headed out towards an entire school, would they be stopped by some kind of elite military force?
Speaker 2: (21:06)
No, I think that's ludicrous. It'd be impossible to manage such a thing. And the idea, I mean I hear this from, I often ask flat earthers and they get really mad at this. I say, where is the edge? And they act like it's a provocation and they'll say, Oh, you can't go, you'll get shot. And I think that's just a way to avoid the topic. And you know, I think that, um, if you want it to go, yeah, you could book a trip and you could go, I just don't know how curated it is. And I'm saying something like this, of this magnitude to be uncovered would require a great deal of public interest. That's the reason why we got behind the research. Flat earth billboard. We didn't say it is flat. Believe us. We said research it, thinking if this piques the interest of enough people, somebody somewhere might know something that could make this go somewhere and reveal it one way or the other. But all we get from NASA, all we get from the other side is ridicule and a little bit of mockery. They never really show us anything that I think is satisfying.
Speaker 5: (22:01)
Okay. So, um, keep on talking about Antarctica. Walk out the, the recent people that are the Antarctica, um, even, and I have photos and video of them doing it is that will fake it as well.
Speaker 2: (22:13)
I hate to say it, but you know, we're in the age of deep, deep fakes. We all know about deep fakes and I think we are deep faked on Apollo 11 and, and be just as easy to deep fake us about Antarctica. They could take pictures and say, look at me, I'm on the rings of Saturn and what are you going to do? Believe them or not. It's like, it depends on how much you trust them. And so I just think we cannot trust photos anymore, especially if their entire objective is holding up a deception. So I had to rule out photos as evidence in itself. Same with video.
Speaker 5: (22:41)
Okay. Um, so, uh, the, do you know of the, uh, one more orbit team that did the potable flight recently?
Speaker 2: (22:50)
Yeah, I actually called and I, I'm actually trying to get an interview with Colonel vert about that and I watched that the one more orbit they did on the 50th anniversary of the Apollo. And this sounds bad because I was hoping they would just get on a plane and make a big loop, but it looked like they were in like on a stage and you didn't even see out the window. You saw vert sitting there joking. And then he'd have his camera and take a picture out the window. I didn't get the impression these guys were even in air. I'm sorry. But that thing looked fake and it's just so lazy if be fake, something like that.
Speaker 5: (23:21)
All right. So again, it comes down to they're, they're lying close and it's all being orchestrated. All right. So I suppose the question though I have to ask is, is there any evidence for this, that actual hard evidence that the anyone can actually go in and find to show that what you're saying might be a reality? Cause you know, I've spoken to a lot fly earthers and no one has ever actually shown me any positive evidence. There's always lot of, um, well I don't think this could be true or, uh, I think that like taught me because of this. But is there actually any physical evidence of the earth being a plane?
Speaker 2: (24:01)
Right, right. That's a good question. Um, is there, because you're right, you know, when you're talking about extraordinary claims, whoever's making the claim owns that burden of proof and a lot of flat earthers are like, I'll put it on them because the globe is so extraordinary. But I'm saying, no, after this long, it's so entrenched, it's really up to us. And so the best I can do, uh, what I find compelling personally is I look at the ISS blooper reel that I find very compelling. That's one too. If you look at the European space agencies footage of the earth from space, they have a shadow under the ISS that shouldn't be there. That's hilarious. And it's a mistake and they do it on multiple takes. So I would say look at the ISS footage. Hyper critically, if you want to think, if you want to find out if there's anything to what I'm saying here.
Speaker 5: (24:47)
So, um, again, that comes down to the difference between kind of folks and posted evidence. What you've just given me is uh, more, well the ISS is possibly fake, therefore the or it could be flat rather than an actual bit of evidence for the earth being flat. Uh, I understand that you, the, you don't believe that NASA is telling the truth. Uh, I'm probably older face agencies. Um, so let's just take guys, given the dots, do the, your diet is your stance. So knowing that, do you actually have any positive evidence for the earth being flat?
Speaker 2: (25:21)
I have one for ya. Um, I was out, I was in the military for a few years after high school and I was with air defense artillery and there was one day where we were out at white sands, New Mexico and they were using these radars as for the Patriot missile system and they were painting targets a a hundred miles away. And I remember thinking nothing of the distance and we're talking about targets on the ground. Can't talk about this. It's actually, this is even what I told, you know, I don't have the security clearance to know it. I overheard it cause I was attached to a unit as an NBC guy. And so I didn't even think about this little conversation I overheard until I heard somebody talking about rail guns. And I'm like, I can't find any videos of rail guns shooting a hundred miles on a level trajectory. But popular mechanics says they can do it.
Speaker 2: (26:05)
But I do specifically recall people in ADA air defense, artillery talking about painting targets a hundred miles across a flat level ground and nowhere are they talking about a parabolic arc. So when I hear this, I'm thinking, well this is why the public doesn't know. You asked earlier how many people would know tens of thousands of people. No, it's flat because they've experienced it, but they don't know that they know it. And I'm saying anybody who's ever done air defense artillery, who's worked at those distances in these bases know that they're not dealing with a ball, at least not one with appreciable curve at a a hundred miles. So that's one thing I could say that would point to evidence. But the problem, like I said, the people who have the evidence are probably sworn to secrecy.
Speaker 5: (26:47)
Right? Okay. So there really isn't any hard kind of circumstantial empirical evidence that you could point me to the, you know, anyone could go, could go and find. Um,
Speaker 2: (27:02)
so okay, there is, there is, here's one. Like the thing is everything that we point to as odd as obvious proof that we're on a flat stationary plane and that the lights above us are local and move. Anything we can point to already has a counter explanation. So people will say, well, you see different constellations in the Northern and Southern hemispheres because we're on a ball and it's being obscured by the curve and I'm saying, or we're on a flat plane and the stars are close and local. So, um, a lot of this is built upon assumptions. And so, um, even, uh, air Stoss cities that experiment about measuring the shadows and the angles of the shadows when the sun on the same day, 500 miles apart was based on what [inaudible] assuming a ball measuring a ball. But what if you took the same measurements and you didn't assume it was a ball?
Speaker 5: (27:49)
Well, they kind of already knew that it was bull. Uh, and it was just using the angles that then gave them the circumference. So as soon as yes, to do that experiment with the two points, you would have to assume that it was the bull. But there's a lot more in the con now show us. Yeah, we're 2,500 years later in there. It's all sneeze and we've got the technology now too to actually measure these things. And I know you're not going to accept all this stuff from, from space, but um, it, photography on the ground can, can show the, we are on a curve. When you look at things like Mount Rainier in the distance being smaller than the mountains in front of it where it's actually bigger, you know, showing that we are on on a curve. Um, you know, I, I've never, you know, I can, I could point to a thousand pictures, the aren't from the space that show that we have a curve that is visible and there is an effect to the curb. But I never ever seen anything from any Voxer for the is positive evidence of this. Here is a picture of the flyer F
Speaker 2: (28:57)
well the one thing we have going for us luckily is a, the science channel is back in mad my Hughes homemade astronauts and they've got a raccoon built and this is a flatter there who is going to the Karman line using a combination of a balloon and a rocket and he's going to get high enough whether he reaches 60 miles or even half that the footage he gets is going to have to be taken seriously by everybody on both sides. If they're going to be honest and flat. Earthers won't be able to deny it if it shows a big fat curve.
Speaker 5: (29:28)
[inaudible] I mean prop smart make use, I'm the guy who's built his own rocket out of the boiler. So a guy named [inaudible] a lot ever. But you know that's, that's pretty cool. And the fact that he is going to try actually gets medicines, which is great. So if that came up and he showed that there was a big curve, would that change your mind would adopt be enough to convince you there a physical Oop.
Speaker 2: (29:52)
Oh absolutely. Although what it wouldn't do is it wouldn't immediately cause me to think, okay I was 100% wrong on everything I called out on the ISS because then I would still have to ask myself then why is the space station faking stuff? Cause they still are faking footage, which would really lead me to think that well maybe the earth is a ball but they're hiding land or they're hiding the fact that Antarctica is a lush paradise. Like there's something they're hiding if they're deceiving us all the time with these productions are given us from the space companies. And I do have a conspiracy theory about this. I do actually think that the space program is really nothing more than a way for all the nations of the world to get everybody to March lockstep with radical environmentalism. And I think that's the case. You went look at all the right wingers who voted for Trump thinking he's a small government nationalist and he brings him space force. So I think the space program's just a ruse anyway. Well
Speaker 5: (30:49)
see the big problem with that is that you have to assume that all the governments are colluding together and you know that that's just something that I don't see it as possible. Um, you know, D do you think the countries that are typically hostile, USA and China to have a friendly relationship, are they actually in secret talks with each other and you know, secretly ruling the world from some kind of shady organization?
Speaker 2: (31:14)
That's what I'm saying. That might sound controversial to you. I think that the nations of the world are actually in a massive conspiracy against the populations. Whoever runs these places owns these places. I don't think that Russia and America were ever in a space race. I think it's always been a ruse to get the capitalists to fall into this idea of this new utopian communist workers' paradise, which is all being couched in this Jetson's like window dressing. AK. The space program. So yeah, it worked. Look how many capitalists are willing to give up their luxury, their wealth, their meat to go farm potatoes on Mars. This has been a communist plot from day one. That's my theory. And so yeah, I do think that any nation that has part of the space program that adopts it like Iran, now they have their own space program. Anybody who does that, I think they fall in lock step with this universal deception. Okay.
Speaker 5: (32:04)
So the, you know, the recent norms from India, um, that that was all part of the hooks as well. So, and anything that has to do with space is all part of the hope.
Speaker 2: (32:14)
Yes. I, I believe the outer space, uh, as it's been described to us is really just a utopian vision. It's the new version of heaven that, you know, Rome used to have people on this idea of heaven that we're trying to get to. Everyone's competing over who has the right version. Well, outer space is the new universal heaven for the one world order religion, which is the space program. That's my contention here. And they're all working together. And when you look at an obelisk, you may, I mean a rocket, you're looking at an obelisk in my view, you're looking at Rome, you're looking at really the universal religion and a new heaven that the atheist found palatable. I mean, you're probably an atheist and you fear God more than the God fearing people cause you believe we're in the end times. If you believe in global warming and imminent asteroid strike.
Speaker 5: (32:59)
Hmm. Well, um, yes, I'm an atheist. Uh, although I will say I will never be able to disprove God. I don't, I don't think anyone could ever disprove that there is a God. Um, but I also don't think that the acceptance or, um, knowledge of there being a God takes away the physical laws that we know and see every day. Uh, you say outer space isn't real. So, um, I would have to ask you why is there a pressure gradient? And the reason I asked that question is because we know that there's a pressure gradient then surely that would mean the depression gradient would go all the way to zero, which would be outer space,
Speaker 2: (33:43)
right? Yeah. Actually I know what you mean. Outer space like they used to call it thin air and yeah, of course as a pressure gradient you go up higher and higher it's going to be thinner and yeah, that's technically called outer space. I just think that what we've been sold is outer space. What's been packaged for us with generations of science fiction and pseudoscience and mysticism pretending to be science and cosmology, cosmology. I think a lot of this stuff is just fiction. So our construct of space is a fiction. What is up there? I don't know. I don't think it goes out for the trillions light years. I don't believe in exoplanets. I don't believe in uh, black holes or any of this stuff. I don't really think that beyond our range of vision, there is this magical paradise full of unlimited resources. I don't think that mankind's future is up there. And outer space I think is really, like I said, it's a false vision. I think it's a utopian thing. I think it's heaven.
Speaker 5: (34:37)
It's fake. Okay. So, um, do you, do you prescribe to the, we're in an enclosed system thing or uh, are you accepting of the fact that there could be a point where there's zero atmosphere but it's just not what we've been told?
Speaker 2: (34:55)
I am accepting of it. And if it is the case, then what is up? Whatever's up there. Um, now it doesn't necessarily mean that there'd be orbit. That's what I don't know yet. And as far as there being an enclosure, I think it's premature to say anybody who says there's a dome, I'm like, where the hell they getting that from? Cause if you're going to say there's a dome like Mark Sargent for example, you're taking your concept from the Bible. And that concept also includes a footstool that the dome sits on. So I can't, I can't say, you know, there's an enclosure and if there is saying it's a dome also presupposes that it arcs down and there's an edge somewhere. And I can't even assume that. So no, that's
Speaker 5: (35:33)
what I was going to say is if there is a doom, how come there's been any reports of anyone you getting to the point where they do music around? Um, exactly.
Speaker 2: (35:44)
Exactly. And, and I, I call them edge phobes. Uh, ask any flat earth or who says there's a dome, show me the dome. Where's the dome? Show me the spot where all the spent space X rockets are piled up at the edge and none of them want to go there. They're not even interested in the topic because they see it as you challenging their biblical faith. So no, I think the dome was put there for religious people to co-opt this, um, a new level of skepticism against what could be a whole lot of pseudoscience. The Bible has nothing to do with flat earth.
Speaker 5: (36:16)
Okay. So what happens when NASA or space X or anyone, they don't, you rock it up and you see it going into space. And I could show you videos from edge bachelorettes where um, you can see the gas escaping out of the bank, gained to the point that he shows you the rocket is in a vacuum. What they're doing with those rockets.
Speaker 2: (36:37)
Okay. How have the, yeah, this is my problem with this. Okay. So recently there was a so used supply rocket went up to go deliver some, you know, monkey costumes, guitars and a pizza, whatever, to the space station. And uh, one of the guys on the space station did a time lapse of that rocket front, the soleus rocket going from earth to space. And you could see it on a TimeLapse. It goes from the ground and you could see a little explosion as it goes into space. And it looks like it's something out of a video game. And I'm kind of face palming here because there was no gravity tilt. It went perpendicular from earth to the space. When we know that these rockets arc and then they fall into orbit. It didn't do that on the time lapse. So I'm just saying I don't trust any of this footage they give us cause I think it's all done in a production studio.
Speaker 5: (37:25)
Okay. So it's all done in a production studio. What about when for instance, the ISS does a, you know, a two hour long live stream or people on board floating showing you around the compartments? We have equipment floating, liquid floating. How do they do that in real time?
Speaker 2: (37:44)
I've seen that and I think what they do with the space station is movie magic. I think what got us to the moon is movie magic. It could easily be harnesses but these days it could be almost anything. Uh, it can also be parabolic flights for short bursts. I think they've done that before. I noticed they don't have a long, a lot of long haired women up there anymore cause people noticed all the hairspray. Uh, so when it comes to the ISS I think thinks eminently debunk bubble and it does in different ways. I think it's foolish and I think they're embarrassed by it and they want to bring it down so they can replace it with something with better special effects.
Speaker 5: (38:17)
Uh, C, um, I honestly don't see how they could do a live feed for that long with people, you know, floating and equipment and floating and everything. Um, say it was just 30 seconds, whatever it could be on hardball, that flight. But when you have life feed where they're interacting with, with people that are watching the live feed and it's going on for a long, long, long time, shows that they have to be in some kind of microgravity environment.
Speaker 2: (38:48)
Well, one of the things I look at is, and in fact this is kind of funny, I was noticing that many of the times they look like they're dangling like characters in that movie inception. Like they've got harnesses on their back. And I've always noticed that with Scott Kelly that there's a thickness around his neck. He almost looked like he was hanging upside down from like, uh, among, uh, what do you call it? Monkey bars. You know, like it's like why does he look so livid? Anyway, the next day I got this article on space news where they were talking about how astronauts on the ISS have a lot of blood in their heads cause they're floating around and it's almost like they were doing damage control cause we're calling it out that these people are dangling like spiders against a green screen background. That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: (39:26)
It doesn't look like they're actually in outer space. To me, I don't find the footage compelling whatsoever. Um, I don't think that it's, uh, even likely that you can find a tour that they don't have it chopped up into short little bursts. They did the longest hail Mary pass ever during the Superbowl before last. So they threw a football that went from one end to the other. There were four splices in there. Why do they have to splice it? If they had showed me a football going the whole distance, I would have said, okay, well that would be hard to fake.
Speaker 5: (39:56)
Hmm. Okay. So, um, can you see the screen?
Speaker 2: (40:01)
Uh, yes. That would be a, is it Tim peak?
Speaker 5: (40:03)
Yeah. Yeah. So what do you think is happening here? Do you think this is, um, he's doing this for some kinds of cinnamon talk to reason? Cause I, I've had this brought up it with a goal or flat earthers well watching what's going on in this shot here.
Speaker 2: (40:17)
I'm familiar with this shot. And people will say, they'll look at that and they'll say that some type of, um, blue screen that they're using. And uh, that's not what that is. Um, what he's doing here though is yeah, he's simulating space and he's doing some type of experiments with objects and simulated space. Um, I don't believe he's in this outer space, zero G environment. And when I look at the way that they move on the ISS, it looks nothing like the way people move in parabolic flights. They, they're super stiff. I mean, have you ever looked at some of the somersaults these guys do when they don't get tangled up in their own harnesses?
Speaker 5: (40:50)
Yeah. Um, and Powerball flights, Stabler things, but when you're on the ISS, it's a constant rate of, um, of, of acceleration towards the ground because, you know, that's one the way it is. They are constantly accelerating during freefall. They're always aerating towards the ground, but they are missing the ground and you're missing the earth and constantly going around, which is why they're always in freefall. Um, uh, so yeah, that's a lot smoother than when you're on a parabolic flight and you're being chucked around. Uh, I'm glad that you, uh, agreed that this isn't some kind of criminal key screen because I'm certainly, if I refers, try and say that this is a criminal case to, and I use green screen all the time and there's absolutely no way that you'd be able to use that as any kind of green screen. Craig, the to remove what's happening is the, the white squares would make it a lot harder than, than would need to be.
Speaker 2: (41:46)
Yeah. That's a bit of cognitive bias. There are a lot of times people they'll reach for things and just try to grab as many things as they possibly can. Grab all of 200 proofs from Robotham and I don't think that's the right approach. So now with regards to the ISS or the ISS transits are the, one of the things that really got me to question this thing, because I do a lot of our, used to do a lot of video editing. I do a lot of photo work and I was, I've been watching Jerilyn's ISS transits and when I saw it I thought, wait a minute, this has gotta be a joke. That is, I thought he was pulling a joke on the flatter. If there's everybody like there's no way you could have that much detail on an object 272 miles away moving at 17 K now I know it's relative on the speed, but there was zero motion blur way too much detail. And so I actually looked at this closely and I really have a hard time believing that any of the ISS transits are real.
Speaker 5: (42:43)
Even ones like from red rhetoric. And a short me life. Um, I'm sure, I'm sure you've seen those [inaudible] things and um, showing me a very, very happy to use their transits. All the ISS can calculate its distance and speed and just using the pictures that they took, uh, you know, and looking at the distance they were a part of, they actually, they managed to get the correct speed and that was, you'd all be ISS. And when things match up to what we're being told is it just backs up the, um, you things are, as we've been told.
Speaker 2: (43:20)
Right, exactly. So what it looked like to me is, and I hate to say it, you know, but it looks like these guys in Jared, and this is just my opinion. And again, you know, I have a certain conspiratorial bias about this thing being a deliberate deception. They look like low level agents perpetrating a deception by all faking the ISS transits to maintain the illusion of low earth orbit. And coming from Jaron as an authority. Now all of Jerilyn's followers believe that there's an object up there. They just don't want to admit it's ISS. And I'm saying, Hey you guys, you don't have any proof. There's an object up there other than an insert shot that looks phony. And the fact that it looks just as phony as reds and the other guys tells me they're all in on it, they're all pretty much, I think a conspiracy against reality.
Speaker 5: (44:05)
Have you ever tried to film it yourself?
Speaker 2: (44:08)
I have and I have through a couple of people. My discord server, and one of the issues I have is this. A friend of mine was pointing out, there's a news article, I think it was in New York, and they said the ISS is going to be visible for 647 seconds. So you're looking at this things up there from one in 10 minutes and I'm like, wait, there's no way you should see it for 10 minutes if it's going five miles a second, unless you're seeing it from what, 1500 miles, one way, 1500 the other way. And there's no way that we can see 3000 miles of sky at the 300 mile altitude Mark. So it took too long to pass over. This was a 10 minute ISS transit look it up. There's no reason why you would see a light for 10 minutes, not the speed that it's going, not if it anticipates going around the world in 90 minutes.
Speaker 5: (44:55)
Well, when you can think about eating the angle or what you're viewing and deciding how much of that the ISS would be positive, I didn't think that would be a stretch to think of that. That's how it should be. Um, so
Speaker 1: (45:11)
[inaudible]
Speaker 5: (45:12)
Jaron, like you said, has managed to get transit, um, at you, are you saying that he's part of the conspiracy to lie about things?
Speaker 2: (45:22)
Not just Jaron, but Jaron and globe busters? Deep inside the rabbit hole, that entire clique, uh, even, uh, Nathan Thompson, I hate to say it, all these guys stand by it. They swear by it and they say it's real. And I'm saying that's just an insert shot. You see Jaron put his phone up and then he says, okay, three, two, one. He times it and then bam is an insert shot. And it's like, you don't know what he did. That's just like when NASA cuts from the rocket disappearing from your line of sight, you can't see it anymore. And then they cut to space. Well in between that cut, that's where the deception is. And so yeah, I had to walk away from this saying, Hey, all these big community, um, leaders and thought leaders in the flatters community are actually secretly working for the other side.
Speaker 5: (46:10)
Okay. So, um, who are the actual flight rivers?
Speaker 2: (46:18)
Well, given that the flat earth society is obviously controlled a controlled narrative, very biblical, they believe in a dome and yet they still believe in outer space. They believe in climate change, which is also a huge contradiction. A Mark Sargent believes in climate change. Huge contradiction because the same people who are telling you about climate change are the ones reporting everyday. Hey, you're on the ball today. So that's a huge contradiction. But um, as far as the only legitimate ones are the people who are looking into it for themselves, who don't have an agenda of religious agenda or an agenda somehow to reinforce the idea of low earth orbit and that we're on a ball. And that's what it looks like. Glow bussers and Jared are actually doing under the disguise. It's called controlled opposition. Lennon talked about this. It's an old thing.
Speaker 5: (47:07)
Okay. So the, the main flat earthers within the current movement are controlled opposition. Um, well, help me. Um, why do you think I do what I do?
Speaker 2: (47:18)
I think you do what you do because you legitimately trust what you've been told and you think it's real and you see what we're doing as an a front if not possibly dangerous. I've seen the, I'm not sure if you think this and I wanted to you, do you think that people have the right to be this wrong or do you think it's a danger to society? Like do you think society needs to intervene at some point when people or what you think to be wrong?
Speaker 5: (47:40)
[inaudible] there's, there's being wrong and then there is being so wrong that you have to think that everyone is lying to you. I might be a problem with fly earth is the, um, to believe that the earth is flat. Like you said, everybody has to be lying to you or at least being lied to. So to have to, for a child to come across that kind of influence, I think that will skew their mind for the rest of their life because if they think that everyone's lying to them, then they're never going to trust anyone. And it can confuse and ruin a young mind. And when it's going against what education says and when it's going against what you can even find out for yourself, I do think that it comes to the point where it can be dangerous to, um, the vulnerable and the less intelligent members of society that would not know any better.
Speaker 2: (48:40)
I'm, I'm with you on that. Like, okay. I don't think it's right to try to teach kids. Like Eric Dubay has a book out right now, right? Where he's teaching kids about flat earth and like, this is the wrong guy to do it. Uh, for a number of reasons. Not just his ethnic fascism and all that stuff, but that that guy puts out a book for children thinking, I guess what to try to get them to start questioning it now. And they don't have enough information. Like this is something for adults. But at the same, by the same token, I don't think that students or kids in schools should be taught that global warming is a fact. I don't think that they should be terrorized with these school shooter drills. I think school shooter drills are a form of terrorism by the state against the kids.
Speaker 2: (49:21)
And I think it's based on these school shootings, which I'm not gonna get into it into your channel. And this is a very, very sensitive topic. But I'm just saying I don't trust the media and I don't trust the space media. I don't trust the news down on the ground or above. And I think brainwashing is fundamentally wrong. So yeah, I'm with you on that. Brainwashing the information is dangerous and I'm saying here is that you like a lot of information can be dangerous and radicalizing for people. And I think that the radicals who believe in global warming are way more dangerous than the flat earthers who say that the earth is flat.
Speaker 5: (49:52)
Okay. Right. So, um, I think I'd like to talk to you about some of the reasons why I think that the earth is round eye and see what you think about. And one of the main things is that I know that we are spending, I know that Europe is rotating. Um, it's very easy to figure out that the Europe is very tasting cause there's so many things that happened because the earth is rotating that Coriolis force, he help us force, um, you know, the pendulum effects, all these things quite clearly show that the physics of us being on a rotating object. Um, so how do you respond to things or also, you know, Bob did the, the, the fiber optic diary thing. Um, but I know did [inaudible] position, but regardless of that, fiber optic gyros do show what Bob said. They do show that positive 15 degree per hour drift. So why do all these things where account to show that the earth is rotating? It is not
Speaker 2: (50:51)
right. Well, the only explanation for that would be that they're measuring something other than movement of the earth, which would imply that there is a 15 degree movement in something which could be what? Um, I think they would call it the ether. I don't know specifically. So my answer is I don't know. I need to invest it. I would need to, um, because look, the only explanation is one Bob gave ether, which isn't even included, you know, in our modern scientific paradigm. So what are you gonna what are you gonna do? Are you going to trust the Oracle in the box? And so I look at this gyro thing is I don't think we should make an argument from laser gyro. I think we should just wait until one of these space agencies can just take a picture of the earth from their iPhone and show it spinning instead of all these CGI rendered. Obvious phoneys Whoa.
Speaker 5: (51:40)
The, the thing is about that is the, it's being at 15 degrees per hour, which you know, you're not going [inaudible] to see from just taking a little picture. I mean, you can see the, the, this theater, if I've got 50 behind me, right. You know, the earth is spinning so much slower than I think I set out to like 400 times, maybe 4,000 times faster than actually spinning.
Speaker 2: (52:04)
Um,
Speaker 5: (52:05)
so for you to say you want to just see a video of your sitting, you'd have to watch 24 hours to see your routine. Just once. Okay. Yeah, that's a fair point. That's a fair point because it would be so slow, which is why we have things like the vibrancy gyro and this agnostic effect. Do you understand how the driver measures what it does?
Speaker 2: (52:30)
Oh, why don't you explain it and clarify for me.
Speaker 5: (52:33)
Okay. Alright. Let me just get a video up. Um, there's a very good explanation totally for it.
Speaker 2: (52:40)
And, and look, and what I would expect to see a really quick here. Um, why couldn't they could just time-lapse a 24 hour spinning, um, ball and the cloud should reflect a 24 hour change. But anyway, go ahead and explain the gyro.
Speaker 5: (52:54)
Okay. Alright. So, um, now what fibrotic gyro does essentially is split into two paths. Okay. So, uh, one half is the blue, one part is the red. Um, and if the driver is not moving when the light goes round, it's going to take the same amount of time to go around both of the paps. So when it recombines like this, uh, you wouldn't see any kind of interference pattern. But if the driver is rotating like this, uh, that literally makes one of the past, the lighthouse duty travel shorter, which means that when it gets back to the point that the light recombines, the, the lightweight would be out of sync with each other and you would get an interference pattern showing. Now that's how the fiber optic gyro would measure a 15 degree drift because the Java itself would literally be moving, making one of the pastors are like shorter and it's not an EDI 15 degree power adrift. It would register. He left it for like 365 days. Um, it would literally show you an entire rotation around the sub as well. It would lot drift, obviously lots about one degree a day, so it'd be a lot harder to see lot. But seeing the 15 degrees per hour because of their side effects is very easy. And modern aircraft have three of these ones measured. The pitch one's measured, your one's measured row because they are so precise in measuring the movement of what they're actually on.
Speaker 2: (54:32)
Okay. Let me ask a question then. So, um, what do you think of Bob's explanation here? Uh, that it's the ether, it's measuring. If there were such a thing as the ether just hypothetically and we're on a flat stationary plan and we're moving, would it react with that gyro in the same way?
Speaker 5: (54:48)
No. Uh, there's a gyro like that doesn't um, have any kind of outside influence. It doesn't know what's going on outside the gyro at all. Um, it is literally just measuring the movement of the dry area itself and therefore the thing is attached to, um, Bob tries to use the fact that, um, Oh the, the ether has this kind of talk toroidal spin coming down that that's at 15 degrees per hour. That's what it is, what it registers. But light would not be affected by and whatever the ether is in that way because it's not an electromagnetic field or anything like we could, we'd be able to measure that. It's nothing that could ever affect the light in that gyro in the way you, the, they are saying because it would literally have to be slowing down the light for one of the paths rather than the path itself becoming shorter or longer. So, um, when Nathan Thompson, for instance, related to a federal, so he really has no idea what he's talking about. So, um, no, I honestly, even if the ether was a thing, which it's really not much more clearly sure that I, you know, I don't think it would be able to pick up my, the head of the energies as Paul said.
Speaker 2: (56:06)
Interesting. Okay. So I don't have enough information about that particular tool to know if I can, uh, reliably make my determination based on that alone. I don't think that laser tests are going to be effective. There are too many things that would mitigate that being an effective way of testing for insight. He was lack.
Speaker 5: (56:22)
Yeah. I don't see, think the later tests are kind of useless because we all know that you light is affected by the atmosphere and you know, things can refract, so it's very hard to how to Alaysia tests after you show you what you want it to show you because you could say, Oh yes, it's reaching that point, but then you can say, well, there's actually curving with the earth. So, um, I think [inaudible] did a very good video ones and white laser tests are actually not very reliable. Uh, which is why he, for me it comes down to things like this that actually show the physical rotation of the earth. Um, and do you know what the pendulum effect factors?
Speaker 2: (56:59)
Yeah. Okay. Like, so for example, you take the yeah, the pendulum and people make claims, you can tell where you are in the world based on its movement. Um, I don't know if, I think that is, um, viable. It looks like it could be gamed. It looks a little too, um, like the thing about water going down the drain or coral effect, do you think that snipers take the rotation of the earth into account for long distance shots? Whoa.
Speaker 5: (57:24)
Cypress very rarely shoot over a kilometer. Um, and uh, I mean the U S military, uh, the us Marine Corps sniper manual doesn't go over a thousand kilometers. And I didn't think, sorry, one kilometer. Uh, I don't think for kind of that link you would need to take the CoreOS into account. Um, I have high snipers. Tell me the, for longer shorts. Yes, they do have to take into account. Um, but we know for a fact that, um, ballistics you have to take into account you, um, the, the famous story of, uh, during the world war where the British were shooting artillery and they taken into account for what they thought was a car that was forced, but they ended up being twice as far from the targets as they were essentially. And that's because of the equipment was industry just designed to work in the one Hanasarah. So they had to kind of reverse that [inaudible] right. All these things add up to the, you know, the Coriolis forces real, um, however you said about Walter, you're going down the drain that thought kind of an urban myth and the Coriolis forces very little to do with which weighty workers down the drain.
Speaker 2: (58:36)
But isn't it interesting how many of these urban myths are taught in schools at the elementary level? And then when you talk about fighter, the first thing people say is, Hey, my friend's in Australia where he's upside down in the water goes the opposite way and these things get passed on. And then you get Jimmy Kimmel who says that he can look at the horizon and he can see it bend. So I don't see people fact checking what they've originally been taught. So right or wrong, at least flat earthers are going through this stuff and pouring through it. I have a question for you. Do you think it's a contradiction that the moon is both Tyler tidally locked to the earth and also said to have its own axial rotation?
Speaker 5: (59:14)
No, because that's kind of all title in is the actual rotation of the earth map of the moon, um, matches the rotation of the earth. So that means the, by the time the moon does one full rotation, it's also done a rotation of the earth, um, meaning the, the face always stays towards the earth. And that's simply to do with um, gravity pushing and pulling. So, um, if you, uh, imagine the moon spinning, rotating a lot faster than it is, I ain't going around the earth. He, the gravitational forces are going to be trying to slow down that sin. Uh, and then it gets to a point where it's an equilibrium with the rotation of the, the, the immune right to access and the rotation of the moon around here. And that's just a natural equilibrium over the gravitational forces acting on that.
Speaker 2: (01:00:15)
Yeah, I understand that and how it's described as synchronous rotation. And so I'm looking very closely at the moon and what we're told and what it's supposed to be and how it's supposed to work. And I find it very problematic that its face is always towards us. And I can understand if it was locked and its face was basically, um, locked to us. But the fact that they say it's rotating and we never see the back of it and they say, Oh, it's just because of our relative position to the earth, it's almost too perfect to believe. I understand that's an argument from the incredulity, but I find that it's very hard to believe and I hope they're right because if they built space
Speaker 5: (01:00:47)
just arguing, um, you can look at it. We'll get every muse and solar system. I'm you, they're all totally locked as well. Uh, you know, you [inaudible] you can look at the music Jupiter and you observe these things for yourself. You know, I mean, being tightly locked isn't an abnormal thing. Um, and when you actually look into the reasons why it happens based on the heliocentric model, it has to happen.
Speaker 2: (01:01:14)
Okay. Then I've got another question. So the earth is an overlay spheroid I understand. It's so a minute Leo blade, you can't see it. But the idea is that it's spinning. So it's kind of like hand tossed pizza. It's getting chubbier in the middle as it spins. How come we don't have any pictures of old blade planets anywhere. The only one that we're told as a blade is the earth. And yet our imagery of it is all very spherical. Spherical is a ping pong ball. Where are all the old late planets?
Speaker 5: (01:01:42)
Well, um, again, there's a reason why our plan is only very slightly old. Like you would have to assume that other clients would only have a very, a slight obliqueness. Um, did we, we don't really see Pat plates spinning like a whirling top. Uh, so you would have to think that the centrifugal forces are never there to make that actually happen. Um, I don't know what would happen if there was a planet spinning, you know, it was so faster. It would flatten itself out. I'm not, I'm not sure, but I think I could say with certainty that we've never observed appliance spitting enough for the [inaudible] bleakness to be that news.
Speaker 2: (01:02:22)
Okay, that's fair. Um, couple of the questions. One, there's no space dust. So if I get a little bit of a dust storm where I live, I can't see the mountain peaks eight miles away. And yet between earth and the moon, quarter of a million miles, there's not enough dust to cloud up even a single star between the earth and Mars is millions of miles. Yet there's no clouds at night in outer space blocking any stars. And for the amount of tonnage of debris up there and the amount of dust that's actually hitting the earth every day, there ought to be some kind of cloud cover beyond our immediate atmosphere out there in space. At least occluding the stars here and there. And I never see it.
Speaker 5: (01:03:00)
I mean the sitting clients is XYZ spaces massive. And there, there isn't that you massive dust clouds just kind of rolling around in space. Um, um, Oh, I would say a good way to kind of put this into perspective is that if you look at the rings of Saturn, right? You would think that they're kind of a hard tangible thing. There's a ring, but no, there's like an average about a kilometer. Uh, yeah. Maybe more between kind of the objects that are inside his rings. There's nothing, you know, it's not like a whole bunch of tidy pop things together that you could grab as well. It's just because it's so massive. It looks like they're closer together and I suppose it's the same as space space is just so massive. The any clouds of dust are going to be sued if you, so they're never really going to be an issue for us to see or deal with.
Speaker 2: (01:03:54)
I just figured after millions of miles, because the amount of dust in terms of like the weight of dust, let's say there might be a ton of dust between me and that mountain peak eight miles away, but I would just think that it would aggregate and it would accumulate and at least once in a while we'd have a dark patch in the sky. I was told by space news.com that there is a dust moon orbiting the earth between the earth and the moon and it is 70 times wider than the moon and it could hypothetically black out the moon on any night. And yet I've never seen this dustmen so a lot of my disbelief comes from, I've never seen a lot of the things they say are up there.
Speaker 4: (01:04:29)
[inaudible]
Speaker 5: (01:04:32)
um, I mean most of the things they say are up there, you can literally observe yourself with any commercial grade telescope. Um, well I think one thing I have to ask you is when we go to things like we are learning about gravitational waves and when we're detecting gravitational waves, we're like, Oh, what is this all just keeping up the goal? I am just inventing more things to, to keep the light going. What would be the point of investing all that money in creating Lego if space isn't a real thing?
Speaker 4: (01:05:05)
[inaudible]
Speaker 2: (01:05:06)
uh, because space is ultimately the religion that's being used to ensnare the entire human race and throw them back into feudalism.
Speaker 4: (01:05:14)
Yeah.
Speaker 2: (01:05:14)
Oh, sorry about that. Yeah. The reason why I'm is, uh, because the idea of outer space is the linchpin that holds this whole false paradigm, utopian vision together, outer space as a utopian vision. And I think that all the sciences are being perverted or Curver to fit this end. You know, there are physicists right now who say that the universe is flat, right? They say it's a flat, infinite universe. I find a lot of people who they probably are legitimately, um, pure intentions doing their work as they think they should be doing. But at some point it goes from science into pseudoscience. Just like the reporters on the ground for the news media, they may be well intentioned thinking, they're just reporting the news. But whoever runs a corporation has an ulterior motive. And so I'm saying there's a lot of good natured people in all these different fields who are being misled. And I can tell you the astronauts are not being misled if they're, if this thing is true, if the earth is flat, every single astronaut is an actor through and through. Some of them are scuba divers and pilots, but they're actors, not space travelers. Okay. Alright, so let's [inaudible]
Speaker 5: (01:06:20)
say I'm a, I'm a kid growing up and uh, I love space and I want to be an astronaut and I've worked really hard and I call it my degrees and I have gone through the NASA trade in program
Speaker 2: (01:06:30)
[inaudible] space. I think you're told when you're moving up through the ranks you're going to be selected for certain things. There's a TV show in the UK called space cadets and it describes the process of choosing the contestants for what was going to be a hoax. And they selected people who they knew would fall for it. They have various indicators and five of the people on this craft believe they were in low earth orbit for the duration of the TV show. So I think there's a lot of deception. I think it's a need to know basis. And I think that deception is the rule, not the exception here when it comes to the sciences high up. I think the media, the government controlled media and the government controlled science are all in a conspiracy to hide the nature of the world that we're on. And I think that NASA is just a religion at this point. Okay. Um, so,
Speaker 5: (01:07:27)
you know, there'd be no point in anyone actually trying to,
Speaker 2: (01:07:31)
uh, go and become an astronaut. Then I would say this. Okay. So if, let's say you wanted to become an astronaut, I would say, um, obviously keep doing it. The skills you learn, everything's going to matter, but at some point you're going to be entering into, um, you're going to have to enter into the realm of either being a dupe or one of the Dupers on the space. Cadet show. Five of the people on deck were actors, the other five were the dupes. So it's just a matter of what side are you going to be on? If you're going to be at Duke, you're going to be a useful idiot your whole life. Uh, that's what you'll do. And I think the people who are holding up the deception are the ones who are selected, the ones who are willing to lie and deceive, to gain an upper hand in life. It's a criminal conspiracy. And you think about it.
Speaker 5: (01:08:14)
Um, I mean if you,
Speaker 1: (01:08:17)
if the earth was flat, then yes, it would be a criminal conspiracy, but there's so much evidence that says the earth isn't flat. That's the thing. Um, I've talked to you about, uh, [inaudible] rotation and, and you kind of skipped over pendulums and, uh, of you that there's a channel or a channel called the the gentleman physicist that did this and it's something I'm trying to recreate at the moment where you can use a pendulum to kind of locate your position based on the amount of swing that the pendulum gives over a certain amount of time. Um, okay.
Speaker 5: (01:08:48)
Do you agree that pendulums can show the rotation of the earth?
Speaker 2: (01:08:52)
Okay. What about vocals, pendulum and things like that? Right. I think, I think Foucault's pendulum. I think the Cavendish experiment, I think these things are all just meant to give an appeal to an authority and appeal to tradition. I think that these are all just things that need to be tried out. Again, I don't think we should site experiments from 150. I don't think that we should have settled science. Like the climate change. Scientists want to say absolutely and [inaudible] and that's one thing. Science
Speaker 5: (01:09:19)
isn't a settled thing. You know, our, our, our knowledge is always increasing. Um, but when you say about the Cavendish, there is people that have done it recently. There's um, a global effort called BM verbal, um, an absolute amazing guy. Everyone please check out BM verbals channel. If one of my mods could put his link in the chat and he has it. He's um, he lives in South Korea and in his apartment he has recreated his own cabin dish experiment and the data shows that mass attracts mass. Um, so there is evidence that mass attracts mass and gravity is what we say is
Speaker 2: (01:09:55)
okay. So some guy in South Korea in his apartment figured this out, see, like, look, if it's repeatable. So if we can get people all across the planet to do it at the same time, repeatable. And this is why I said earlier, what would I, what I would find compelling is if you could get 10 or 15 people on a single night to catch the same ISS transit and put that footage back to back and make it contiguous because there's no way you could refute that.
Speaker 5: (01:10:22)
Okay. Um, I mean that maybe that's something that flower firs should be trying to do, to disprove at once. And for all a w when, when I say about [inaudible] doing it in, in his own apartment, that kind of says to me that it is a repeatable thing that anybody can do. I mean, there's no special equipment involved here that I've just managed to do it himself and over refinement of figure out the best way to actually measure the, the, the phenomenon of mass attracting mass. Um, and the reason why a I wanted to talk about gravity is because when we look at gravity and we use Newton's law of universal gravitation, uh, ethicals GM one M two of our squared that says that we have to be honest veer. Um, so that fundamental equation, uh, the, the law of as it's called, is that something that you dispute?
Speaker 2: (01:11:18)
Um, I have to dispute it as a pseudoscience at this point. I think everything that we've, um, been pretty much educated on has been to reinforce this basic notion of the spinning ball and Helio centrism. And so, no, I really don't think we should be appealing to ancient Greeks either. I hate it when people say all the Greeks knew it was a ball. I don't think that's valid. Um, personally I think the arguments that are made for the ball and for flat earth and a lot of them are bad. Um, I don't think that, um, boats go over the horizon, but I don't think we should feel the earth spinning if it were spinning.
Speaker 5: (01:11:51)
I mean, that didn't really answer the question of, um, do you agree that there is this downward et cetera enforce the, is making things accelerate towards the ground?
Speaker 2: (01:12:00)
Oh yeah. As I said earlier, yeah. I don't dispute any of what we observe. I'm just saying that the, uh, underlying causes or explanations are being skewed. So they're taking real science and then they're augmenting it with a little bit of, you know, a little bit of ball, throw some curve in there. They're throwing this all for a little curve here with this stuff. So
Speaker 5: (01:12:20)
[inaudible] the thing about the, the acceleration is the, um, it changes depending on where you are on the earth. Uh, you and the centrifugal, et cetera. Aeration could be slightly different as certain points. And based on the math of our model, you, we can calculate exactly what the acceleration should be at what points on the earth. So why would the acceleration be different at different points on the earth? And why would that comport with, with the model of it being a sphere?
Speaker 2: (01:12:50)
Uh, that's a good question. But also when you're starting off with the presumption, you're on a ball and you're measuring the acceleration, different points, you know, you're starting with that as an assumption that you know, the size to be 25 K and I don't think that starting, I think guy start ground zero and I'm saying flat in rejecting the stuff that comes from NASA, the space agencies and anything trickling down from that, assuming this basic paradigm to be true. I mean this also throws in into um, question, uh, timelines involved, you know, big bang. How many is the earth? 4 billion years old dinosaurs. All this stuff is up for question right now in my mind.
Speaker 5: (01:13:27)
Okay. I mean there's so much to unpack there. Um, I just want to kind of really stick with the, the gravity thing of the moon because there isn't an assumption of the ball. Um, when you do these gravity measurements, um, yeah, you can do the Cavendish experiment. Uh, and then there's a similar similar thing called the Shelly and experiment where they literally manage that. They use the, the mass of a mountain to register the, the movement of a plum Barb and the, it shows that mass attracts mass, not just downwards but you know, sideways, whichever, wherever masses, massive tracks mass. And based on the calculations that we get from these experiments that are repeatable, uh, and are done all the time near, the only way that they work out is if we have a sphere near the maps for the universal law. Gravitational attraction doesn't work if you're on a flat desk.
Speaker 2: (01:14:23)
Well or plate this, yeah, this is, I guess what I want to see fine tuned. And this is where this argument ultimately has to go is, um, where is the legitimate science ending and where is ideology being inserted? There were people can say with equal certainty that the earth is heating up and climate change is a fact. And I'm saying, well, where does your actual meteorology end? And your agenda of saying the earth is overheating because of America, where is that being inserted? And I think that the science has been corrupted. I think everything you're citing, um, the information you're citing from it sounds legit, but I'm really calling into question whether you can cite these as sources.
Speaker 4: (01:15:01)
Both.
Speaker 5: (01:15:01)
Like I said, when there's things that are done all the time, like the Cavendish experiment and it clearly shows that there is an attraction between mass. It leads you to only one conclusion.
Speaker 2: (01:15:13)
Look, I've got a guy who calls me up sometimes. Um, he was a, um, he was in then he was in the coast guard and this is like in 2001 and they went and they did a circumnavigation and so you know, at the time he believed he was on a ball. Anyway, he was up on the lookout deck and I asked him how high up were you? He said 40 feet up above sea level with the bug islands is, and he said he was getting visual confirmation of boats is 60 miles away, verified by radar, 60 miles consistently the whole trip. And so we did a little bit of a math on this and it's like, well look, the math there would say that we're not on a ball because these vessels should not have been visible from the view from that, from that distance. And so visual confirmation at 60 miles and 40 feet up would be contradicted by this eight inch.
Speaker 5: (01:16:01)
I mean I, I, I would love to, to see the photos and everything cooperate in that. But obviously whenever you're talking about photos and looking at stuff that if there is refraction to be taken into account and it kind of works both ways, you know, glue Burford can say, Oh well that that was refraction. Cole's not in, so can flatter refers and it's very hard to actually say without being there and know in the, the, the humidity, the temperature of, of the water and everything. Exactly what you should be able to see at what point. But you know that that's not really something tangible and hard. The I can go and recreate myself and, and it just comes back to something as simple as the Cavendish experiment proven that master tracks mass. And the reason I keep bringing that up is because the math works when you do it from the center of something to the center of something. And that itself means that we have to be on a sphere.
Speaker 2: (01:16:59)
Okay, I'm going to take a closer look at all this and we'll have to do a followup. I just want to point out, look, if we're right, there are certain things that no longer can exist. So if the is not a ball and if there is no low earth orbit, then there's zero chance of nuclear Holocaust. Nothing's going to be flying over that distance. Um, if this is the case, global warming is going to be fake and you don't have to worry about asteroids. And they said that when you wiped out in 2029, you've got to get to Mars because that asteroid upon office is scheduled to come kill us on that Friday the 13th in April. Well, if we're right, none of these things that you have to fear need to be feared anymore.
Speaker 5: (01:17:38)
Well, um, I don't think I fear anything like, uh, astral ashtray, Jay, anything. Because if it was coming, we wouldn't be able to innocent about it. Um, but it's all very kind of wishy washy for from your point, I'm not trying to be rude, but there is no solidness coming from any of your arguments is very much just you think that one is lying to you. Therefore these things are probably well improperly.
Speaker 2: (01:18:07)
Well no, it's pretty solid when I'm seeing through as a video editor green-screen when I see a rear screen projection, when I see, um, a lack of parallax appropriate parallax on the moon footage. So what I'm saying is know what I'm being shown is a bunch of cartoons and it reminds me of when I was a kid, I was, I was given a lot of myths to believe with a religion. And with the space program, it's the same thing. I'm just choosing not to believe in your really expensive, overpriced religious art that pretends to be a description of reality and our place in it. That's all. And it's not wishy washy because what you're giving us is utter crap. If the ISS gave us graphics as good as that movie Sandra Bullock was in gravity, I'd be on board. I'd be totally on board. But what they show us has too many holes in it and it would, I'm just doing due diligence here. You know, I'm not even that radical of a skeptic.
Speaker 5: (01:18:58)
Even talking about the ISS, I've never seen any footage that couldn't be explained where we've, you know, normal logic. Uh, and you know, I honestly, I've never seen anything that has convinced me that anything on the ISS is fake. Uh, I, you know, I've seen all the videos that a lot of flight reefers put out saying that, Oh, this person just faded out. Um, all of a sudden, and Oh, well this person was clearly on a harness and you know, it, it's all just encouraging city more than anything.
Speaker 2: (01:19:28)
Wait, wait, wait. Did you see the one where the microphone went inside of Chris Hetfield's neck? No blood and that microphone had went into his throat. That's how bad the augmented virtual reality layers. We're overlapping and we're laughing at this stuff. We're laughing because Chris Hadfield has a microphone stuck through his neck and you guys got to pretend like you can't see that. You've got to pretend like you can't see it. It's a naked emperor and we're saying he's got no clothes and you're like, Oh, well you just don't have the sophistication to see these fine ropes.
Speaker 5: (01:19:58)
Nope. See, I, uh, I've not seen one with a microphone in the throat. Uh, but all the, maybe I have, I'm not sure, but a lot of the ones I've seen, for instance, the, um, I'm sure you've seen the one where there's national going off to a side room and he kind of feeds out as he's going into the side room and yeah, that can be explained simply as a transition between scenes, you know, um, the, the rest of the rooms not changing. The only thing changing there is the, the fact the astronaut is moving. So the scene has transitioned as the astronaut leaves the room, it's going to look like he's just disappearing. If you then putting up just as an image of the room with nothing in
Speaker 2: (01:20:36)
yeah. Right, right. That'd be, that'd be a crossfade. Okay. A crossfade wouldn't count. Okay. Here's one for you. There's one where Chris Hadfield is eating asparagus and it's really gross. He's like licking his fingers. And I'm like, dude, how many times have you washed your hands up there? And 20 years the same astronauts and cosmonauts if you can, using that same toilet. And he, so he's sitting there with his fingers eating asparagus cause you know, using sanitizer in your hands isn't enough. So he's using a [inaudible], he's eating asparagus and you actually see him cutting the packet open to the scissors and there's a point in the video, look it up, Chris Hadfield eating asparagus with a scissors disappear and move to the other side of the room. They glitch. That glitch cannot be explained with logic. It can be explained with final cut pro for and sloppy editing.
Speaker 5: (01:21:23)
Come on, I can edit better than that. So this is one thing that gets me right is that NASA are clever enough to have perpetrated this hoax for the last 50 years. At least a year. They fooled everyone into thinking that the, the, the earth that we went to, the moon, they managed to do amazing effects. You 50 years ago, the most movie producers say would have been impossible back then, but they're also stupid enough to leave in a glitch of something popping for one side of the room to the other. If I was an organization perpetrate in this enormous hoax, I would not let shit slip through. I've only just started using Adobe after effects and stuff and learning the intricacies of compositing and everything. And you know, I wouldn't make those mistakes. So I don't think if NASA were smart enough to do this, they would also be stupid enough to make those little mistakes.
Speaker 2: (01:22:21)
Yeah, that's a good point. That's a very good point. And I think, um, and I've noticed this not just with space, but with a lot of the news on the ground, like, and there is a lot of fake news. We can agree like Jessie small it fake, lynched himself. You know, we see these instances of fake news hoax is leaking out there. You know, 66% of reported hate crimes have turned out to be fake. So what I'm saying is this, it's always been this way. The space program has always been sloppy. The media hoaxes have always been sloppy. The differences in 2019 everyone has a smartphone and everybody shares information. So the difference is now we're finally noticing and they weren't ready for it. In other words, we woke up as a collective of hyper critical awake individuals scrutinizing this footage. We're paying attention and, but you could look back 10 years, 20 years, 25 years. And it's laughable. They contradict themselves. So many times the Coke Wars with Pepsi and Coke went up and outer space and they were drinking Pepsi and Coke in space. When now they say, and this is from NASA's a, their food department. Well, we can't have carbonation in space. It doesn't work. So like, which is at Koch Wars in space or you can't drink carbonation space because the way the carbonation doesn't, uh, it doesn't separate properly, whatever. They're constantly contradicting themselves. They've been sloppy and goofy from day one. The challenger astronauts are not dead.
Speaker 5: (01:23:38)
Come on now, that's a grabber, not go there. Cause uh, I, I find that disrespectful to the families of, of those people.
Speaker 2: (01:23:46)
Well, I find it disrespectful that those people would disrespect billions of people on the earth, including school children. Did they traumatize that footage wasn't live. There's no reason for them to have wheeled those TVs into our classrooms and showed us the footage. Oh look, kids, we're going to watch a rocket go up. They knew it blew up because that was a replay. So if anybody should be offended, it's me and everybody here who had to watch that BS. So no, I don't think they're dead. I think the whole thing is a farce. I think that URI gagger and the first man in space is also Neil Armstrong. And I wouldn't be surprised if buzz Aldrin isn't just George C. Scott. It's just an act.
Speaker 5: (01:24:23)
Right? Um, I think we're gonna have to, to end it there then, um, uh, when it gets to talks about things like the challenger and that, uh, I find it very hard to continue. Um, so, uh, I do want to say the, it's up. It's been a pretty good talk we've used up to this point. Um, but that just for me, that's just a, the and I kind of can't cross and continue to have a conversation. Um, so, uh,
Speaker 2: (01:24:56)
sure. The feeling, the feeling's mutual. Look man, it's a shock. It's a big slap in the face to find out you've been lied to and deceived and you're on the other side of it. And I think that you'll feel the same thing when you realize that you've been duped. I appreciate you taking the time. I'll look into all the things that you brought up and I will, um, let you know what I think and then if you want to discuss it, those things in particular, we'll go back over those.
Speaker 5: (01:25:17)
Alright, well thank you very much for joining me today. Uh, and yeah, that, that was an interesting talk. Have a nice night. Likewise.
Speaker 2: (01:25:25)
Okay, so here we go. Uh, that's the end of that conversation. So, um, that was a good 90 minutes. I think we covered a lot of ground. He brought up a lot of good points. I think that he's, um, okay, I want to go back and I want to address this thing about the Cavendish and about mass attracting mass. These are things I want to go over. Um, I hope you all had fun. I did. I did. And look, um, a lot of things are triggering for a lot of people. This is the arena that short that we're in. And so, you know, this is just the nature of exposing reality and the fact is, um, we've been lied to. So what are you going to do? You know, Gaslight yourself. Okay. So let's get back on track here. This is Takashi 69. Our newest, a flat earth fanatic wearing a flat earth map on his shirt.
Speaker 2: (01:26:27)
Um, let's see what else we have here yet. Hey, no, it was, um, it was really, uh, an interesting talk. But you can see though, look, we're dealing with more than just the shape of the world here. We're dealing with a difference in world views. We're dealing with a difference in like, look, this is something to a flat earthers as a group of people are not respecting the authorities and to, and too many people that's tantamount to blasphemy or heresy. So anyway, Hey look, we're trying really hard right now to get a uh, bit of publicity on what we're doing. Like when we did this before, you know, we did the billboard before. I think you all have seen it. Research flat earth. Well we have a new plan right now and this could be big. This could be potentially the biggest thing to happen to this topic in a long time.
Speaker 2: (01:27:27)
If we want to blow this up to new audiences and yeah, that will be gnashing of teeth. That will be a lot of crying if we do this right. Okay. So infinite plane radio, coast-to-coast, mobile billboard. Um, I have someone who will match a thousand. We want to get this sponsorship that someone's me actually. So if we can get another $825 on the infinite plane radio coast to coast mobile billboard, it'll be this, it's going to say infinite plane side society down the sides. There's 85 people watching on YouTube right now and all 85 of you flat round, undecided, ablate, all of you, um, do have a vested interest in this thing blowing up. And this billboard will do just a trick. It's actually part of a, a movie tour. Mike's going to go promote his movie rocket man.
Speaker 2: (01:28:23)
And part of the promotion is, um, while he's paying for the trip, the gas and everything, by having somebody rent out this a limousine space and a billboard that's going to be towed. So this is what we are working on right now. It's going to say infinite plane radio. Open phones for open minds, (505) 510-4226. So we're gonna have the phone number on here. We're going to have some provocative billboard on the back. I don't know what yet. We're still working it out. And then we are also going to have the infinite plane side on the side and going to be having this thing live streamed at any of the meetups he goes to. But really what we want to do is we want to grow our audience back up from, you know, 500 live viewers a thousand lives. We want to bring it back up.
Speaker 2: (01:29:13)
If we can get 500 to a thousand people watching and we bring up any topic at the best, you know, the research will come in, it will come in and it's something else. Um, we aren't gate kept and you see it, you saw what happened, right? There's a lot of people do have to gate keep, and I understand on YouTube you have to be gatekeeping your own material. You can't talk about certain things without risking your channel and it's really too much to risk. Uh, what we're trying to do is break out of that entirely by having, uh, really a grass roots organic listener base that isn't just a YouTube audience. And so we're multi-platform when this thing goes across the country. We'll have mixed [inaudible] back on. So they'll be an audio stream at infinite plane radio. It'll be open phones every single night, night after night. Open phones for open minds.
Speaker 2: (01:30:06)
Um, is kind of our catch phrase here. And yeah, everything's on the table. I think that Bigfoot's boring aliens are boring. I think there are far more interesting things to talk about and we get a lot more perspectives this way. So anyway, even if you don't have anything to contribute, that's cool. If you don't mind, just go there and share it. Hit the share button, hit the tweet button. It's a mobile billboard going coast to coast. It'll get a lot of publicity. You've seen the success of our previous, um, billboard campaigns. All right, so I'm gonna go ahead and take off. Thanks for joining. Um, if you missed it, just go back to the beginning. I'm leaving this video up. Yeah. Basically. Um, fight the flat earth is one of these, um, globe defenders who's been pretty much on the offensive for what, more than a year now. Uh, he's got a good following of people, I think a 17,000 people. And what he has done is he has actually elevated the level of intellectual honesty. He did make a point, you know, I say, you know, we shouldn't, we should see more. Oh, blade plan. It's, well, nothing spins that fast. Right? So that's a valid point. Then my question is then why the hell are you telling us these things are obeyed in the first place? Anyway, this is chief Crow into the black space is fake a F
Speaker 6: (01:31:28)
you can see those stars. Oh yeah. We're never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side. Wait, I mean, it's planned, but there's all kinds of that [inaudible] space space. There's more than stars. You can see planets [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] the deep space away from [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] what happens if you get a week on that? [inaudible] [inaudible] research. April he does on the league at NYU would do lose air here.
[inaudible] flat earth report. [inaudible]
Speaker 2: (00:52)
okay. So, Hey, really quick here. I have a few minutes until we start this a debate between myself and fight the flat earth. So, uh, before we get started, I just want to run a couple things by you. First of all, um, Rachel Maddow, give her a shout out for that little sound bite. The flat earth report soundbite. She Sue, she's being sued for $10 million for saying that America news network is Russian propaganda.
Speaker 2: (01:21)
Just thought I'd bring that up. Okay. Takashi six nine. This whole trial is about to begin with is kidnapping. So what are they saying? Racketeering. He's raising money for his gang. Turns out the lawyer for his kidnapper says the whole thing has been faked. He faked his own kidnapping to sell records. And so you scroll down here and it just says he's about to drop an album. His album dummy boy was originally gonna be released in November of 2018 and he says he trolls every time he's about to drop an album. So you gotta get your buzz up. That's how you make money. It's, what is, what's the, is what the defendant's lawyer says. So basically, uh, yeah, Takashi six, nine, he took a selfie of himself all hurt in the hospital bed and all that fake, fake, fake. So you know, he's acting like a gang banger. Uh, for some reason here in, by acting, I mean literally it's just an act. Uh, for some reason he's got a flat earth map. So is Takashi six, nine a flat earth or he's got a flat earth map on his jacket.
Speaker 2: (02:28)
I think that's noteworthy. Go ahead and share the stream. Um, in just a few minutes here, I'm going to be joined by fight the flat earth. You may know of him. He's a anti flat earth, uh, debater, I guess you would call him. Bit of a polemicist kind of reminds me of an angry science teacher. Um, Brad Pitt who may or may not be Gary Durden. So check this out. So Brad Pitt is doing a bunch of space propaganda cause he's a sellout. Nothing new there, but I'm searching the term auto hoax in the news just to see what happens. You know how this term evolves because we're the ones who pretty much, you know, leaked it, kind of forced it. We're trying to force it into the news. So I'm searching auto hoax and I'm checking on news to see, you know, has it showed up in any meaningful sense?
Speaker 2: (03:25)
And what do you know? So this uh, paper in like that gets in Brazil says Brad Pitt deep faking as Gary board in hashtag black face and they cite my video. Now I think they call it a satire, but it's interesting here. So we've got deep faking in auto hoaxing making the news finally showing up in newspaper headlines. They take it as a satire, but I dunno, Gary dirt and Tyler Durden, Brad Pitt, it's not all that farfetched. It's, it's uh, not a stretch. When you look at some of the other ones that we may or may not have uncovered, you got to see the new one, which we'll do with later when I'm not debating the flat earth round earth thing, you wouldn't buy it. It's either Stephen Curry's wife is a completely real person. Ayesha Curry or it's Hannah Montana with a Tana. It's pretty obvious, but we'll get into that in a minute here. It looks like Eric Dubay came out and did a, did an interview. You guys see of recent. It is, he's wearing camouflage. It's kinda hard to seize on the right
Speaker 3: (04:36)
conversion, right? Yeah, right. Like yoga too, you know, exercise, how yoga means union or not. So yeah, I was like, Oh, getting together into, because you're always practicing duty duty for a while. Yeah. And social like industry,
Speaker 2: (04:51)
Eric Dubay so transcendent, you know, he can release all these videos about how the Jews are gonna take over the world and you've got to get back to Europe and defend the white land, make white babies. And yet he's still up there in Thailand. Just climbing trees and meditating, breathing, I mean, very inactive. Okay. So I'm like I said, um, we're on standby. I will be debating with fight the flat earth who believes we're on a spinning ball, that we came from monkeys. Dinosaurs are real, asteroids are scary. Global warming is real. Get your kids vaccinated, Chuck, that fluoride and all the rest to straight blue pill all the way, and you know I'm totally fine if disagreement, who wants to just be surrounded by people they agree with? 24 seven becomes an echo chamber. That's one of the reasons why we opened phones. It's one of the reasons why we refused to allow any agenda to get in the way of truth. Just as community often gets in the way of truth. So really quick here, fight the fight or is coming up in a minute to Kashi. Six nine faked his own kidnapping. The kidnappers lawyer admits it was a publicity stunt and he's wearing a flat earth map on his shirt.
Speaker 2: (06:12)
Probably these are fake tattoos. I wouldn't be surprised like I really wouldn't be surprised if these were faked hats. We're looking at deep fakes. This is what a deep fake looks like. Okay, so flattered. Crypto says magical gravity, so powerful. It holds oceans, yet we can walk freely. See, those are the types of arguments that fight the fighters will take apart. Like, Oh, I don't feel it spinning. Why would you, how many rounds per minute do you think the ball makes? Zero. It takes a whole freaking day to spin around. So of course you're not going to feel it a thousand miles per hour. Yeah, it sounds big. Thousand. But you know, we're talking about you being a speck on a massive ball. And so you have to also remember when you're even debating, they have their own rules. They have their model, which is internally consistent. And so arguing from incredulity doesn't work. Infinite Jack says, asks him about upside down buildings in one 80 a Maddie says, wait, wait, this is the MF or you're debating. He has faced at fake face. Tats. Yeah. We're saying they're fake. This is fight the flat earth.
Speaker 4: (07:22)
Okay.
Speaker 2: (07:25)
No, this is Takashi six, nine. The rapper who faked his own kidnapping, let me get a picture of fight to fight earth. Well, we have his logo here on the screen. It's basically, it's a fist with a metal, like, like steel, um, a plate that says FTF II and he's punching a hole through an equal distant as a muscle map. Freedom. Wait, says like your fake tattoos. Yup. I have tattoos. I was a, I was in Facebook prison for six months out of the last year. I got the tattoos to prove it. They're kind of ghetto, but we, you know, we uh, may do with what we had.
Speaker 2: (08:12)
Okay. Right now we're only on YouTube, so go ahead and share the stream. We're also in discord. If you post any memes or images that you think need to be, uh, broadcast to the world, drop them in the live chat and I'll make sure I highlight them. I do like to make an effort here to offend the offendable. Get offended. Okay, so here is so called Steven Curry's wife. I, you HSA Curry. Tell me that's not Hannah Montana. And look, we've been seeing a lot of these things. Um, okay. I think we're just ready here. So let's get back on.
Speaker 1: (08:58)
Okay. Tim, can you hear me?
Speaker 2: (09:00)
Yes, yes, I can hear you just fine. And I've got about, uh, 50 people here hanging out.
Speaker 5: (09:06)
Oh, excellent. Hello to you guys. Um, just about K story at two minutes and I'll start the stream. On my side.
Speaker 2: (09:11)
Okay. That sounds good. And so I'm just going to send everybody I think to your channel, but um, yeah. Okay, cool. Bye. Yes. Okay,
Speaker 5: (09:18)
I'll get, I'll give you a chance to, um, like promote your channel and stuff. Uh, introduce yourself to my subscribers and now let me start.
Speaker 2: (09:26)
Sounds good. All right. Thanks a lot. I'll see. Just a few moments.
Speaker 1: (09:29)
Okay.
Speaker 2: (09:32)
Okay. So it just occurred to me, um, one thing, I'm not using my headset and I'm not using my headset. Thank you. Uh, because we're using, um, uh, his phone system and it's using my microphone, my webcam that I don't use. It's like, so basically, I think the thing that's gonna make the most sense. Okay. There's our host is let's just go over to his page. I don't know if you, did you guys have audio in Facebook? I'm really sorry on YouTube. I know you don't in discord, did you have audio from fight the flat earth? Cause if you did on YouTube, you're good to go. You don't have to move. I'm gonna go ahead and kill a discords audio though. Okay. You did. Okay, great. Those of you on discord go to one of the YouTube live streams. Either fight the flat earth or go to mind. It's all good. Um, I'll put a link. I mean, you may or may not want to subscribe to him. It may or may not be your cup of tea. I mean, you know how I feel about this.
Speaker 5: (10:40)
Okay. I'm just getting going on my end. I'll take my intro and then introduce you.
Speaker 2: (10:44)
Excellent. Okay. Good to go. Excellent. Good to go.
Speaker 1: (10:53)
[inaudible]
Speaker 2: (11:06)
on the desk floating through space.
Speaker 1: (11:09)
[inaudible] [inaudible]
Speaker 5: (11:29)
Hey, I'm FDFP welcome back to the channel that tasty pity to the train tracks of knowledge Monday night. So it's Monday night, the debate time. And tonight I am joined by Tim Austin or the infinite plane society. So let's just start and Tim, welcome to the channel. Would you like to introduce yourself and tell people what you're about and why you think Europe is the shape that you think is,
Speaker 2: (11:50)
yeah. Thanks a lot for having me. Uh, my channel infinite plane. It's a meant to draw distinction between the flat earth society, which I think have come to too many conclusions without enough evidence. And so to me it's more like infinite possibilities. It's flat until proven otherwise. I don't a certain ice wall, I reject the notion of a dome and any biblical explanation, which is worse than pseudoscience. It's mysticism. So most of the so called flat earth community does not like what we do because we do not accept the biblical authority. And so, uh, my take on it is this, um, I arrive at not a conclusion but at the negation of the conclusion that we're on a ball because I don't trust those same authorities that the people who believe we are trust, I think there's plenty of reason to think we've been deep faked about science. And so for me, I'm going to need more evidence and I don't accept what I've been shown thus far.
Speaker 5: (12:45)
Okay. Thank you. So you're, your main reason for not accepting the, the main narrative is mistrust then, right?
Speaker 2: (12:53)
Yes, largely mistrust.
Speaker 5: (12:57)
Um, what about the, the fundamental forces of physics that, that we can understand and measure? Do you disagree with how they work? Like things like gravity and use centrifugal acceleration.
Speaker 2: (13:09)
I don't disagree with these things. I don't deny that they exist. I'm just saying that the explanations were given are probably skewed. So I'm not in denial of any of the things that you observe for I observe and moreover, I don't augment my reality with anything I can't observe. So for example, some people will say they can see the curve when they look at the horizon and I would say, well that's impossible. That's somebody imposing what they're expected to believe.
Speaker 5: (13:37)
Okay. Um, so what kinds of evidence would you accept to acknowledge that the world is, as we've been told,
Speaker 2: (13:47)
I would acknowledge it. It is as we've been told, if I were shown irrefutable evidence, one a curvature as in, um, curvature from high enough altitude brought to us by footage that's not presented to us from NASA or any of the existing space agencies. It's got to come from somebody that I consider to be impartial. Uh, barring that, I would like to see maybe contiguous ISS transits on the same night across multiple locations. That would be irrefutable, that would prove orbit. But, uh, right now I do not find the evidence compelling or satisfying and the lack of footage of a globe in space rotating is also troublesome. And then we're shown things like star man by space X and I see that as just an insult to our intelligence. That can't be real.
Speaker 5: (14:34)
Okay, well let's talk about star man and um, combat. That's quite an interesting topic. You know, a car in space. Well, um, it's cool. Where do you believe it or not? But, um, why don't you think that's possible?
Speaker 2: (14:47)
It's not that I don't think it's, um, impossible. I think that what we've been shown is clearly staged and there were a couple tells in the presentation, so it just looks to me like we were meant to accept it as real because maybe people haven't always been this critical with what they're shown from outer space. And also when I look at the thing it, there were a few things that bother me. One. There are these little bits of what appear to be bubbles accelerating vertically in front of him the whole time I'm told it spaced us. I have a problem with that. And then too, I have a problem with just how perfectly stable and level it is. There's no wobble and we don't see anything of the earth other than just blue. It's like planet water.
Speaker 5: (15:30)
Uh, okay. Well in regards to the wobble, you mean like from the camera's point of view, you don't see the car like shaking and stuff?
Speaker 2: (15:38)
I think it's just way too smooth, too perfect. Maybe a little too curated to be real. I think it should be flip in. There should be some rotation, something.
Speaker 5: (15:47)
Well with the cameras that you, they were bolted on to the car with a frame. So you're in, in relation to the car, the camera is always going to have a steady view,
Speaker 4: (16:00)
um,
Speaker 5: (16:03)
uh, in, in regards to the planet being just water. I mean that's probably just cause that was what it was over at this thing. Um, do you deny that the, uh, the physics that are possible for us to put that up there at all?
Speaker 2: (16:19)
Okay. I'll say this. I'll say that the whole system is internally consistent and if it's all real, if the ball is what they say, if Helio centrism is what they say, then yeah, that would be hypothetically possible. But right now I consider low earth orbit. To just be hypothetical. I don't believe that there's anything in low earth orbit and I don't think that there's any technology we're using right now that requires orbiting, uh, infrastructure up there, dangling shore high altitude. Sure. But orbiting, no.
Speaker 5: (16:50)
Okay. Um, I suppose it all comes down to, uh, talking about the library in a discussion like this. Um, one thing I always want me to ask you is who do you think is in on the truth? If the truth is that the earth is flat, who are the people that actually knew this?
Speaker 2: (17:09)
That's a very good question. It's an excellent, it's a, it's an excellent question because it's the whole thing about flat earth. The problem is it does presuppose a conspiracy. This couldn't be an accident. It could not be an omission. It's not that nobody noticed. If it is flat, then this is a deliberate, multisensory deception, which is a pretty huge claim. And I understand that. So if it is the case that people in the know would be a people high up in government and military on a need to know basis, um, and it would also be a pretty much a military secret. And it could also be, I mean, if you think about it, it might also be the, the, um, secret itself could be something handed down through the secret societies. I don't know if you believe in that stuff, but I'm just saying, you know, the military, you have security clearance as a higher up you go, that's a sin. That's a secret society in effect. And so I'm saying yes, secret societies have always been around. And so yeah, this whole theory does presuppose something, I can't say who I wouldn't point out a certain group or tribe or I think that's all red herring, but I think we're in a assistant that has an elite technocratic class that employees this, they distort our history to keep us more or less enslaved. And I think they distort our cartography the same way in our Cosmo graphy.
Speaker 5: (18:30)
So, um, how far do you think the conspiracy would have to go? Um, like how many people would have to notice you say like, uh, hire people we need to know basis in government, but um, what about, uh, pilots and air traffic controllers that work with technology? The, you know, we say relies on blue physics or are they in on the conspiracy as well? Or do they to the pilots just fly assuming they're flying on a ball or, you know, uh, are they lying to everybody as well?
Speaker 2: (19:04)
Right. I know what you mean. I hear this argument a lot. Like nine 11 couldn't be a conspiracy. Apollo 11 couldn't be because too many people would know you got 400,000 contractors with the moon landing. And so I think if you break it down as far as compartmentalizing it, um, the people who actually interface with the ball itself, like pilots don't even think about curve. I mean we're too small to even think about it. It's out of sight, out of mind. I don't think it would require that many people and there could easily be false explanations for what's in Antarctica. Why we don't go over there. I wouldn't assume a silly ice wall, but I don't necessarily assume it's um, what we've been told.
Speaker 5: (19:41)
Okay. Um, so about Antarctica, you say it's not a nice wall. Uh, do you think we've been to Antarctica? Do you think what, um, you know, you have the, the photo up South pole that has to be kind of moved every now and then to say in alignment and everything. Is that a real thing or is there no such thing as this as an Antarctica tool?
Speaker 2: (20:06)
That's a good question. It could be one of two things, in my opinion. Um, it could be perfectly reasonable to think that there is a continent, the shape and look vent Arctica where they say, I'm just suggesting that if it's flat, then that's just one part of a perimeter. There could be land all around. And so we're given the miss apprehension that that continent is at the bottom of a ball. I'm saying here that the whole idea of giving us a false model of a 25,000 miles or conference ball is to hide land and hide resources. That's what I think the bottom line is. I don't think there's a religious thing. I don't think it's God or Satan. I think it's simply a resources and land and a technocratic elite, uh, keeping us in a state of, uh, relative disempowerment.
Speaker 5: (20:50)
So, um, what happens if people want to go to Antarctica? Uh, w what would happen? For instance, if somebody was in a boat on their own and just headed out towards an entire school, would they be stopped by some kind of elite military force?
Speaker 2: (21:06)
No, I think that's ludicrous. It'd be impossible to manage such a thing. And the idea, I mean I hear this from, I often ask flat earthers and they get really mad at this. I say, where is the edge? And they act like it's a provocation and they'll say, Oh, you can't go, you'll get shot. And I think that's just a way to avoid the topic. And you know, I think that, um, if you want it to go, yeah, you could book a trip and you could go, I just don't know how curated it is. And I'm saying something like this, of this magnitude to be uncovered would require a great deal of public interest. That's the reason why we got behind the research. Flat earth billboard. We didn't say it is flat. Believe us. We said research it, thinking if this piques the interest of enough people, somebody somewhere might know something that could make this go somewhere and reveal it one way or the other. But all we get from NASA, all we get from the other side is ridicule and a little bit of mockery. They never really show us anything that I think is satisfying.
Speaker 5: (22:01)
Okay. So, um, keep on talking about Antarctica. Walk out the, the recent people that are the Antarctica, um, even, and I have photos and video of them doing it is that will fake it as well.
Speaker 2: (22:13)
I hate to say it, but you know, we're in the age of deep, deep fakes. We all know about deep fakes and I think we are deep faked on Apollo 11 and, and be just as easy to deep fake us about Antarctica. They could take pictures and say, look at me, I'm on the rings of Saturn and what are you going to do? Believe them or not. It's like, it depends on how much you trust them. And so I just think we cannot trust photos anymore, especially if their entire objective is holding up a deception. So I had to rule out photos as evidence in itself. Same with video.
Speaker 5: (22:41)
Okay. Um, so, uh, the, do you know of the, uh, one more orbit team that did the potable flight recently?
Speaker 2: (22:50)
Yeah, I actually called and I, I'm actually trying to get an interview with Colonel vert about that and I watched that the one more orbit they did on the 50th anniversary of the Apollo. And this sounds bad because I was hoping they would just get on a plane and make a big loop, but it looked like they were in like on a stage and you didn't even see out the window. You saw vert sitting there joking. And then he'd have his camera and take a picture out the window. I didn't get the impression these guys were even in air. I'm sorry. But that thing looked fake and it's just so lazy if be fake, something like that.
Speaker 5: (23:21)
All right. So again, it comes down to they're, they're lying close and it's all being orchestrated. All right. So I suppose the question though I have to ask is, is there any evidence for this, that actual hard evidence that the anyone can actually go in and find to show that what you're saying might be a reality? Cause you know, I've spoken to a lot fly earthers and no one has ever actually shown me any positive evidence. There's always lot of, um, well I don't think this could be true or, uh, I think that like taught me because of this. But is there actually any physical evidence of the earth being a plane?
Speaker 2: (24:01)
Right, right. That's a good question. Um, is there, because you're right, you know, when you're talking about extraordinary claims, whoever's making the claim owns that burden of proof and a lot of flat earthers are like, I'll put it on them because the globe is so extraordinary. But I'm saying, no, after this long, it's so entrenched, it's really up to us. And so the best I can do, uh, what I find compelling personally is I look at the ISS blooper reel that I find very compelling. That's one too. If you look at the European space agencies footage of the earth from space, they have a shadow under the ISS that shouldn't be there. That's hilarious. And it's a mistake and they do it on multiple takes. So I would say look at the ISS footage. Hyper critically, if you want to think, if you want to find out if there's anything to what I'm saying here.
Speaker 5: (24:47)
So, um, again, that comes down to the difference between kind of folks and posted evidence. What you've just given me is uh, more, well the ISS is possibly fake, therefore the or it could be flat rather than an actual bit of evidence for the earth being flat. Uh, I understand that you, the, you don't believe that NASA is telling the truth. Uh, I'm probably older face agencies. Um, so let's just take guys, given the dots, do the, your diet is your stance. So knowing that, do you actually have any positive evidence for the earth being flat?
Speaker 2: (25:21)
I have one for ya. Um, I was out, I was in the military for a few years after high school and I was with air defense artillery and there was one day where we were out at white sands, New Mexico and they were using these radars as for the Patriot missile system and they were painting targets a a hundred miles away. And I remember thinking nothing of the distance and we're talking about targets on the ground. Can't talk about this. It's actually, this is even what I told, you know, I don't have the security clearance to know it. I overheard it cause I was attached to a unit as an NBC guy. And so I didn't even think about this little conversation I overheard until I heard somebody talking about rail guns. And I'm like, I can't find any videos of rail guns shooting a hundred miles on a level trajectory. But popular mechanics says they can do it.
Speaker 2: (26:05)
But I do specifically recall people in ADA air defense, artillery talking about painting targets a hundred miles across a flat level ground and nowhere are they talking about a parabolic arc. So when I hear this, I'm thinking, well this is why the public doesn't know. You asked earlier how many people would know tens of thousands of people. No, it's flat because they've experienced it, but they don't know that they know it. And I'm saying anybody who's ever done air defense artillery, who's worked at those distances in these bases know that they're not dealing with a ball, at least not one with appreciable curve at a a hundred miles. So that's one thing I could say that would point to evidence. But the problem, like I said, the people who have the evidence are probably sworn to secrecy.
Speaker 5: (26:47)
Right? Okay. So there really isn't any hard kind of circumstantial empirical evidence that you could point me to the, you know, anyone could go, could go and find. Um,
Speaker 2: (27:02)
so okay, there is, there is, here's one. Like the thing is everything that we point to as odd as obvious proof that we're on a flat stationary plane and that the lights above us are local and move. Anything we can point to already has a counter explanation. So people will say, well, you see different constellations in the Northern and Southern hemispheres because we're on a ball and it's being obscured by the curve and I'm saying, or we're on a flat plane and the stars are close and local. So, um, a lot of this is built upon assumptions. And so, um, even, uh, air Stoss cities that experiment about measuring the shadows and the angles of the shadows when the sun on the same day, 500 miles apart was based on what [inaudible] assuming a ball measuring a ball. But what if you took the same measurements and you didn't assume it was a ball?
Speaker 5: (27:49)
Well, they kind of already knew that it was bull. Uh, and it was just using the angles that then gave them the circumference. So as soon as yes, to do that experiment with the two points, you would have to assume that it was the bull. But there's a lot more in the con now show us. Yeah, we're 2,500 years later in there. It's all sneeze and we've got the technology now too to actually measure these things. And I know you're not going to accept all this stuff from, from space, but um, it, photography on the ground can, can show the, we are on a curve. When you look at things like Mount Rainier in the distance being smaller than the mountains in front of it where it's actually bigger, you know, showing that we are on on a curve. Um, you know, I, I've never, you know, I can, I could point to a thousand pictures, the aren't from the space that show that we have a curve that is visible and there is an effect to the curb. But I never ever seen anything from any Voxer for the is positive evidence of this. Here is a picture of the flyer F
Speaker 2: (28:57)
well the one thing we have going for us luckily is a, the science channel is back in mad my Hughes homemade astronauts and they've got a raccoon built and this is a flatter there who is going to the Karman line using a combination of a balloon and a rocket and he's going to get high enough whether he reaches 60 miles or even half that the footage he gets is going to have to be taken seriously by everybody on both sides. If they're going to be honest and flat. Earthers won't be able to deny it if it shows a big fat curve.
Speaker 5: (29:28)
[inaudible] I mean prop smart make use, I'm the guy who's built his own rocket out of the boiler. So a guy named [inaudible] a lot ever. But you know that's, that's pretty cool. And the fact that he is going to try actually gets medicines, which is great. So if that came up and he showed that there was a big curve, would that change your mind would adopt be enough to convince you there a physical Oop.
Speaker 2: (29:52)
Oh absolutely. Although what it wouldn't do is it wouldn't immediately cause me to think, okay I was 100% wrong on everything I called out on the ISS because then I would still have to ask myself then why is the space station faking stuff? Cause they still are faking footage, which would really lead me to think that well maybe the earth is a ball but they're hiding land or they're hiding the fact that Antarctica is a lush paradise. Like there's something they're hiding if they're deceiving us all the time with these productions are given us from the space companies. And I do have a conspiracy theory about this. I do actually think that the space program is really nothing more than a way for all the nations of the world to get everybody to March lockstep with radical environmentalism. And I think that's the case. You went look at all the right wingers who voted for Trump thinking he's a small government nationalist and he brings him space force. So I think the space program's just a ruse anyway. Well
Speaker 5: (30:49)
see the big problem with that is that you have to assume that all the governments are colluding together and you know that that's just something that I don't see it as possible. Um, you know, D do you think the countries that are typically hostile, USA and China to have a friendly relationship, are they actually in secret talks with each other and you know, secretly ruling the world from some kind of shady organization?
Speaker 2: (31:14)
That's what I'm saying. That might sound controversial to you. I think that the nations of the world are actually in a massive conspiracy against the populations. Whoever runs these places owns these places. I don't think that Russia and America were ever in a space race. I think it's always been a ruse to get the capitalists to fall into this idea of this new utopian communist workers' paradise, which is all being couched in this Jetson's like window dressing. AK. The space program. So yeah, it worked. Look how many capitalists are willing to give up their luxury, their wealth, their meat to go farm potatoes on Mars. This has been a communist plot from day one. That's my theory. And so yeah, I do think that any nation that has part of the space program that adopts it like Iran, now they have their own space program. Anybody who does that, I think they fall in lock step with this universal deception. Okay.
Speaker 5: (32:04)
So the, you know, the recent norms from India, um, that that was all part of the hooks as well. So, and anything that has to do with space is all part of the hope.
Speaker 2: (32:14)
Yes. I, I believe the outer space, uh, as it's been described to us is really just a utopian vision. It's the new version of heaven that, you know, Rome used to have people on this idea of heaven that we're trying to get to. Everyone's competing over who has the right version. Well, outer space is the new universal heaven for the one world order religion, which is the space program. That's my contention here. And they're all working together. And when you look at an obelisk, you may, I mean a rocket, you're looking at an obelisk in my view, you're looking at Rome, you're looking at really the universal religion and a new heaven that the atheist found palatable. I mean, you're probably an atheist and you fear God more than the God fearing people cause you believe we're in the end times. If you believe in global warming and imminent asteroid strike.
Speaker 5: (32:59)
Hmm. Well, um, yes, I'm an atheist. Uh, although I will say I will never be able to disprove God. I don't, I don't think anyone could ever disprove that there is a God. Um, but I also don't think that the acceptance or, um, knowledge of there being a God takes away the physical laws that we know and see every day. Uh, you say outer space isn't real. So, um, I would have to ask you why is there a pressure gradient? And the reason I asked that question is because we know that there's a pressure gradient then surely that would mean the depression gradient would go all the way to zero, which would be outer space,
Speaker 2: (33:43)
right? Yeah. Actually I know what you mean. Outer space like they used to call it thin air and yeah, of course as a pressure gradient you go up higher and higher it's going to be thinner and yeah, that's technically called outer space. I just think that what we've been sold is outer space. What's been packaged for us with generations of science fiction and pseudoscience and mysticism pretending to be science and cosmology, cosmology. I think a lot of this stuff is just fiction. So our construct of space is a fiction. What is up there? I don't know. I don't think it goes out for the trillions light years. I don't believe in exoplanets. I don't believe in uh, black holes or any of this stuff. I don't really think that beyond our range of vision, there is this magical paradise full of unlimited resources. I don't think that mankind's future is up there. And outer space I think is really, like I said, it's a false vision. I think it's a utopian thing. I think it's heaven.
Speaker 5: (34:37)
It's fake. Okay. So, um, do you, do you prescribe to the, we're in an enclosed system thing or uh, are you accepting of the fact that there could be a point where there's zero atmosphere but it's just not what we've been told?
Speaker 2: (34:55)
I am accepting of it. And if it is the case, then what is up? Whatever's up there. Um, now it doesn't necessarily mean that there'd be orbit. That's what I don't know yet. And as far as there being an enclosure, I think it's premature to say anybody who says there's a dome, I'm like, where the hell they getting that from? Cause if you're going to say there's a dome like Mark Sargent for example, you're taking your concept from the Bible. And that concept also includes a footstool that the dome sits on. So I can't, I can't say, you know, there's an enclosure and if there is saying it's a dome also presupposes that it arcs down and there's an edge somewhere. And I can't even assume that. So no, that's
Speaker 5: (35:33)
what I was going to say is if there is a doom, how come there's been any reports of anyone you getting to the point where they do music around? Um, exactly.
Speaker 2: (35:44)
Exactly. And, and I, I call them edge phobes. Uh, ask any flat earth or who says there's a dome, show me the dome. Where's the dome? Show me the spot where all the spent space X rockets are piled up at the edge and none of them want to go there. They're not even interested in the topic because they see it as you challenging their biblical faith. So no, I think the dome was put there for religious people to co-opt this, um, a new level of skepticism against what could be a whole lot of pseudoscience. The Bible has nothing to do with flat earth.
Speaker 5: (36:16)
Okay. So what happens when NASA or space X or anyone, they don't, you rock it up and you see it going into space. And I could show you videos from edge bachelorettes where um, you can see the gas escaping out of the bank, gained to the point that he shows you the rocket is in a vacuum. What they're doing with those rockets.
Speaker 2: (36:37)
Okay. How have the, yeah, this is my problem with this. Okay. So recently there was a so used supply rocket went up to go deliver some, you know, monkey costumes, guitars and a pizza, whatever, to the space station. And uh, one of the guys on the space station did a time lapse of that rocket front, the soleus rocket going from earth to space. And you could see it on a TimeLapse. It goes from the ground and you could see a little explosion as it goes into space. And it looks like it's something out of a video game. And I'm kind of face palming here because there was no gravity tilt. It went perpendicular from earth to the space. When we know that these rockets arc and then they fall into orbit. It didn't do that on the time lapse. So I'm just saying I don't trust any of this footage they give us cause I think it's all done in a production studio.
Speaker 5: (37:25)
Okay. So it's all done in a production studio. What about when for instance, the ISS does a, you know, a two hour long live stream or people on board floating showing you around the compartments? We have equipment floating, liquid floating. How do they do that in real time?
Speaker 2: (37:44)
I've seen that and I think what they do with the space station is movie magic. I think what got us to the moon is movie magic. It could easily be harnesses but these days it could be almost anything. Uh, it can also be parabolic flights for short bursts. I think they've done that before. I noticed they don't have a long, a lot of long haired women up there anymore cause people noticed all the hairspray. Uh, so when it comes to the ISS I think thinks eminently debunk bubble and it does in different ways. I think it's foolish and I think they're embarrassed by it and they want to bring it down so they can replace it with something with better special effects.
Speaker 5: (38:17)
Uh, C, um, I honestly don't see how they could do a live feed for that long with people, you know, floating and equipment and floating and everything. Um, say it was just 30 seconds, whatever it could be on hardball, that flight. But when you have life feed where they're interacting with, with people that are watching the live feed and it's going on for a long, long, long time, shows that they have to be in some kind of microgravity environment.
Speaker 2: (38:48)
Well, one of the things I look at is, and in fact this is kind of funny, I was noticing that many of the times they look like they're dangling like characters in that movie inception. Like they've got harnesses on their back. And I've always noticed that with Scott Kelly that there's a thickness around his neck. He almost looked like he was hanging upside down from like, uh, among, uh, what do you call it? Monkey bars. You know, like it's like why does he look so livid? Anyway, the next day I got this article on space news where they were talking about how astronauts on the ISS have a lot of blood in their heads cause they're floating around and it's almost like they were doing damage control cause we're calling it out that these people are dangling like spiders against a green screen background. That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: (39:26)
It doesn't look like they're actually in outer space. To me, I don't find the footage compelling whatsoever. Um, I don't think that it's, uh, even likely that you can find a tour that they don't have it chopped up into short little bursts. They did the longest hail Mary pass ever during the Superbowl before last. So they threw a football that went from one end to the other. There were four splices in there. Why do they have to splice it? If they had showed me a football going the whole distance, I would have said, okay, well that would be hard to fake.
Speaker 5: (39:56)
Hmm. Okay. So, um, can you see the screen?
Speaker 2: (40:01)
Uh, yes. That would be a, is it Tim peak?
Speaker 5: (40:03)
Yeah. Yeah. So what do you think is happening here? Do you think this is, um, he's doing this for some kinds of cinnamon talk to reason? Cause I, I've had this brought up it with a goal or flat earthers well watching what's going on in this shot here.
Speaker 2: (40:17)
I'm familiar with this shot. And people will say, they'll look at that and they'll say that some type of, um, blue screen that they're using. And uh, that's not what that is. Um, what he's doing here though is yeah, he's simulating space and he's doing some type of experiments with objects and simulated space. Um, I don't believe he's in this outer space, zero G environment. And when I look at the way that they move on the ISS, it looks nothing like the way people move in parabolic flights. They, they're super stiff. I mean, have you ever looked at some of the somersaults these guys do when they don't get tangled up in their own harnesses?
Speaker 5: (40:50)
Yeah. Um, and Powerball flights, Stabler things, but when you're on the ISS, it's a constant rate of, um, of, of acceleration towards the ground because, you know, that's one the way it is. They are constantly accelerating during freefall. They're always aerating towards the ground, but they are missing the ground and you're missing the earth and constantly going around, which is why they're always in freefall. Um, uh, so yeah, that's a lot smoother than when you're on a parabolic flight and you're being chucked around. Uh, I'm glad that you, uh, agreed that this isn't some kind of criminal key screen because I'm certainly, if I refers, try and say that this is a criminal case to, and I use green screen all the time and there's absolutely no way that you'd be able to use that as any kind of green screen. Craig, the to remove what's happening is the, the white squares would make it a lot harder than, than would need to be.
Speaker 2: (41:46)
Yeah. That's a bit of cognitive bias. There are a lot of times people they'll reach for things and just try to grab as many things as they possibly can. Grab all of 200 proofs from Robotham and I don't think that's the right approach. So now with regards to the ISS or the ISS transits are the, one of the things that really got me to question this thing, because I do a lot of our, used to do a lot of video editing. I do a lot of photo work and I was, I've been watching Jerilyn's ISS transits and when I saw it I thought, wait a minute, this has gotta be a joke. That is, I thought he was pulling a joke on the flatter. If there's everybody like there's no way you could have that much detail on an object 272 miles away moving at 17 K now I know it's relative on the speed, but there was zero motion blur way too much detail. And so I actually looked at this closely and I really have a hard time believing that any of the ISS transits are real.
Speaker 5: (42:43)
Even ones like from red rhetoric. And a short me life. Um, I'm sure, I'm sure you've seen those [inaudible] things and um, showing me a very, very happy to use their transits. All the ISS can calculate its distance and speed and just using the pictures that they took, uh, you know, and looking at the distance they were a part of, they actually, they managed to get the correct speed and that was, you'd all be ISS. And when things match up to what we're being told is it just backs up the, um, you things are, as we've been told.
Speaker 2: (43:20)
Right, exactly. So what it looked like to me is, and I hate to say it, you know, but it looks like these guys in Jared, and this is just my opinion. And again, you know, I have a certain conspiratorial bias about this thing being a deliberate deception. They look like low level agents perpetrating a deception by all faking the ISS transits to maintain the illusion of low earth orbit. And coming from Jaron as an authority. Now all of Jerilyn's followers believe that there's an object up there. They just don't want to admit it's ISS. And I'm saying, Hey you guys, you don't have any proof. There's an object up there other than an insert shot that looks phony. And the fact that it looks just as phony as reds and the other guys tells me they're all in on it, they're all pretty much, I think a conspiracy against reality.
Speaker 5: (44:05)
Have you ever tried to film it yourself?
Speaker 2: (44:08)
I have and I have through a couple of people. My discord server, and one of the issues I have is this. A friend of mine was pointing out, there's a news article, I think it was in New York, and they said the ISS is going to be visible for 647 seconds. So you're looking at this things up there from one in 10 minutes and I'm like, wait, there's no way you should see it for 10 minutes if it's going five miles a second, unless you're seeing it from what, 1500 miles, one way, 1500 the other way. And there's no way that we can see 3000 miles of sky at the 300 mile altitude Mark. So it took too long to pass over. This was a 10 minute ISS transit look it up. There's no reason why you would see a light for 10 minutes, not the speed that it's going, not if it anticipates going around the world in 90 minutes.
Speaker 5: (44:55)
Well, when you can think about eating the angle or what you're viewing and deciding how much of that the ISS would be positive, I didn't think that would be a stretch to think of that. That's how it should be. Um, so
Speaker 1: (45:11)
[inaudible]
Speaker 5: (45:12)
Jaron, like you said, has managed to get transit, um, at you, are you saying that he's part of the conspiracy to lie about things?
Speaker 2: (45:22)
Not just Jaron, but Jaron and globe busters? Deep inside the rabbit hole, that entire clique, uh, even, uh, Nathan Thompson, I hate to say it, all these guys stand by it. They swear by it and they say it's real. And I'm saying that's just an insert shot. You see Jaron put his phone up and then he says, okay, three, two, one. He times it and then bam is an insert shot. And it's like, you don't know what he did. That's just like when NASA cuts from the rocket disappearing from your line of sight, you can't see it anymore. And then they cut to space. Well in between that cut, that's where the deception is. And so yeah, I had to walk away from this saying, Hey, all these big community, um, leaders and thought leaders in the flatters community are actually secretly working for the other side.
Speaker 5: (46:10)
Okay. So, um, who are the actual flight rivers?
Speaker 2: (46:18)
Well, given that the flat earth society is obviously controlled a controlled narrative, very biblical, they believe in a dome and yet they still believe in outer space. They believe in climate change, which is also a huge contradiction. A Mark Sargent believes in climate change. Huge contradiction because the same people who are telling you about climate change are the ones reporting everyday. Hey, you're on the ball today. So that's a huge contradiction. But um, as far as the only legitimate ones are the people who are looking into it for themselves, who don't have an agenda of religious agenda or an agenda somehow to reinforce the idea of low earth orbit and that we're on a ball. And that's what it looks like. Glow bussers and Jared are actually doing under the disguise. It's called controlled opposition. Lennon talked about this. It's an old thing.
Speaker 5: (47:07)
Okay. So the, the main flat earthers within the current movement are controlled opposition. Um, well, help me. Um, why do you think I do what I do?
Speaker 2: (47:18)
I think you do what you do because you legitimately trust what you've been told and you think it's real and you see what we're doing as an a front if not possibly dangerous. I've seen the, I'm not sure if you think this and I wanted to you, do you think that people have the right to be this wrong or do you think it's a danger to society? Like do you think society needs to intervene at some point when people or what you think to be wrong?
Speaker 5: (47:40)
[inaudible] there's, there's being wrong and then there is being so wrong that you have to think that everyone is lying to you. I might be a problem with fly earth is the, um, to believe that the earth is flat. Like you said, everybody has to be lying to you or at least being lied to. So to have to, for a child to come across that kind of influence, I think that will skew their mind for the rest of their life because if they think that everyone's lying to them, then they're never going to trust anyone. And it can confuse and ruin a young mind. And when it's going against what education says and when it's going against what you can even find out for yourself, I do think that it comes to the point where it can be dangerous to, um, the vulnerable and the less intelligent members of society that would not know any better.
Speaker 2: (48:40)
I'm, I'm with you on that. Like, okay. I don't think it's right to try to teach kids. Like Eric Dubay has a book out right now, right? Where he's teaching kids about flat earth and like, this is the wrong guy to do it. Uh, for a number of reasons. Not just his ethnic fascism and all that stuff, but that that guy puts out a book for children thinking, I guess what to try to get them to start questioning it now. And they don't have enough information. Like this is something for adults. But at the same, by the same token, I don't think that students or kids in schools should be taught that global warming is a fact. I don't think that they should be terrorized with these school shooter drills. I think school shooter drills are a form of terrorism by the state against the kids.
Speaker 2: (49:21)
And I think it's based on these school shootings, which I'm not gonna get into it into your channel. And this is a very, very sensitive topic. But I'm just saying I don't trust the media and I don't trust the space media. I don't trust the news down on the ground or above. And I think brainwashing is fundamentally wrong. So yeah, I'm with you on that. Brainwashing the information is dangerous and I'm saying here is that you like a lot of information can be dangerous and radicalizing for people. And I think that the radicals who believe in global warming are way more dangerous than the flat earthers who say that the earth is flat.
Speaker 5: (49:52)
Okay. Right. So, um, I think I'd like to talk to you about some of the reasons why I think that the earth is round eye and see what you think about. And one of the main things is that I know that we are spending, I know that Europe is rotating. Um, it's very easy to figure out that the Europe is very tasting cause there's so many things that happened because the earth is rotating that Coriolis force, he help us force, um, you know, the pendulum effects, all these things quite clearly show that the physics of us being on a rotating object. Um, so how do you respond to things or also, you know, Bob did the, the, the fiber optic diary thing. Um, but I know did [inaudible] position, but regardless of that, fiber optic gyros do show what Bob said. They do show that positive 15 degree per hour drift. So why do all these things where account to show that the earth is rotating? It is not
Speaker 2: (50:51)
right. Well, the only explanation for that would be that they're measuring something other than movement of the earth, which would imply that there is a 15 degree movement in something which could be what? Um, I think they would call it the ether. I don't know specifically. So my answer is I don't know. I need to invest it. I would need to, um, because look, the only explanation is one Bob gave ether, which isn't even included, you know, in our modern scientific paradigm. So what are you gonna what are you gonna do? Are you going to trust the Oracle in the box? And so I look at this gyro thing is I don't think we should make an argument from laser gyro. I think we should just wait until one of these space agencies can just take a picture of the earth from their iPhone and show it spinning instead of all these CGI rendered. Obvious phoneys Whoa.
Speaker 5: (51:40)
The, the thing is about that is the, it's being at 15 degrees per hour, which you know, you're not going [inaudible] to see from just taking a little picture. I mean, you can see the, the, this theater, if I've got 50 behind me, right. You know, the earth is spinning so much slower than I think I set out to like 400 times, maybe 4,000 times faster than actually spinning.
Speaker 2: (52:04)
Um,
Speaker 5: (52:05)
so for you to say you want to just see a video of your sitting, you'd have to watch 24 hours to see your routine. Just once. Okay. Yeah, that's a fair point. That's a fair point because it would be so slow, which is why we have things like the vibrancy gyro and this agnostic effect. Do you understand how the driver measures what it does?
Speaker 2: (52:30)
Oh, why don't you explain it and clarify for me.
Speaker 5: (52:33)
Okay. Alright. Let me just get a video up. Um, there's a very good explanation totally for it.
Speaker 2: (52:40)
And, and look, and what I would expect to see a really quick here. Um, why couldn't they could just time-lapse a 24 hour spinning, um, ball and the cloud should reflect a 24 hour change. But anyway, go ahead and explain the gyro.
Speaker 5: (52:54)
Okay. Alright. So, um, now what fibrotic gyro does essentially is split into two paths. Okay. So, uh, one half is the blue, one part is the red. Um, and if the driver is not moving when the light goes round, it's going to take the same amount of time to go around both of the paps. So when it recombines like this, uh, you wouldn't see any kind of interference pattern. But if the driver is rotating like this, uh, that literally makes one of the past, the lighthouse duty travel shorter, which means that when it gets back to the point that the light recombines, the, the lightweight would be out of sync with each other and you would get an interference pattern showing. Now that's how the fiber optic gyro would measure a 15 degree drift because the Java itself would literally be moving, making one of the pastors are like shorter and it's not an EDI 15 degree power adrift. It would register. He left it for like 365 days. Um, it would literally show you an entire rotation around the sub as well. It would lot drift, obviously lots about one degree a day, so it'd be a lot harder to see lot. But seeing the 15 degrees per hour because of their side effects is very easy. And modern aircraft have three of these ones measured. The pitch one's measured, your one's measured row because they are so precise in measuring the movement of what they're actually on.
Speaker 2: (54:32)
Okay. Let me ask a question then. So, um, what do you think of Bob's explanation here? Uh, that it's the ether, it's measuring. If there were such a thing as the ether just hypothetically and we're on a flat stationary plan and we're moving, would it react with that gyro in the same way?
Speaker 5: (54:48)
No. Uh, there's a gyro like that doesn't um, have any kind of outside influence. It doesn't know what's going on outside the gyro at all. Um, it is literally just measuring the movement of the dry area itself and therefore the thing is attached to, um, Bob tries to use the fact that, um, Oh the, the ether has this kind of talk toroidal spin coming down that that's at 15 degrees per hour. That's what it is, what it registers. But light would not be affected by and whatever the ether is in that way because it's not an electromagnetic field or anything like we could, we'd be able to measure that. It's nothing that could ever affect the light in that gyro in the way you, the, they are saying because it would literally have to be slowing down the light for one of the paths rather than the path itself becoming shorter or longer. So, um, when Nathan Thompson, for instance, related to a federal, so he really has no idea what he's talking about. So, um, no, I honestly, even if the ether was a thing, which it's really not much more clearly sure that I, you know, I don't think it would be able to pick up my, the head of the energies as Paul said.
Speaker 2: (56:06)
Interesting. Okay. So I don't have enough information about that particular tool to know if I can, uh, reliably make my determination based on that alone. I don't think that laser tests are going to be effective. There are too many things that would mitigate that being an effective way of testing for insight. He was lack.
Speaker 5: (56:22)
Yeah. I don't see, think the later tests are kind of useless because we all know that you light is affected by the atmosphere and you know, things can refract, so it's very hard to how to Alaysia tests after you show you what you want it to show you because you could say, Oh yes, it's reaching that point, but then you can say, well, there's actually curving with the earth. So, um, I think [inaudible] did a very good video ones and white laser tests are actually not very reliable. Uh, which is why he, for me it comes down to things like this that actually show the physical rotation of the earth. Um, and do you know what the pendulum effect factors?
Speaker 2: (56:59)
Yeah. Okay. Like, so for example, you take the yeah, the pendulum and people make claims, you can tell where you are in the world based on its movement. Um, I don't know if, I think that is, um, viable. It looks like it could be gamed. It looks a little too, um, like the thing about water going down the drain or coral effect, do you think that snipers take the rotation of the earth into account for long distance shots? Whoa.
Speaker 5: (57:24)
Cypress very rarely shoot over a kilometer. Um, and uh, I mean the U S military, uh, the us Marine Corps sniper manual doesn't go over a thousand kilometers. And I didn't think, sorry, one kilometer. Uh, I don't think for kind of that link you would need to take the CoreOS into account. Um, I have high snipers. Tell me the, for longer shorts. Yes, they do have to take into account. Um, but we know for a fact that, um, ballistics you have to take into account you, um, the, the famous story of, uh, during the world war where the British were shooting artillery and they taken into account for what they thought was a car that was forced, but they ended up being twice as far from the targets as they were essentially. And that's because of the equipment was industry just designed to work in the one Hanasarah. So they had to kind of reverse that [inaudible] right. All these things add up to the, you know, the Coriolis forces real, um, however you said about Walter, you're going down the drain that thought kind of an urban myth and the Coriolis forces very little to do with which weighty workers down the drain.
Speaker 2: (58:36)
But isn't it interesting how many of these urban myths are taught in schools at the elementary level? And then when you talk about fighter, the first thing people say is, Hey, my friend's in Australia where he's upside down in the water goes the opposite way and these things get passed on. And then you get Jimmy Kimmel who says that he can look at the horizon and he can see it bend. So I don't see people fact checking what they've originally been taught. So right or wrong, at least flat earthers are going through this stuff and pouring through it. I have a question for you. Do you think it's a contradiction that the moon is both Tyler tidally locked to the earth and also said to have its own axial rotation?
Speaker 5: (59:14)
No, because that's kind of all title in is the actual rotation of the earth map of the moon, um, matches the rotation of the earth. So that means the, by the time the moon does one full rotation, it's also done a rotation of the earth, um, meaning the, the face always stays towards the earth. And that's simply to do with um, gravity pushing and pulling. So, um, if you, uh, imagine the moon spinning, rotating a lot faster than it is, I ain't going around the earth. He, the gravitational forces are going to be trying to slow down that sin. Uh, and then it gets to a point where it's an equilibrium with the rotation of the, the, the immune right to access and the rotation of the moon around here. And that's just a natural equilibrium over the gravitational forces acting on that.
Speaker 2: (01:00:15)
Yeah, I understand that and how it's described as synchronous rotation. And so I'm looking very closely at the moon and what we're told and what it's supposed to be and how it's supposed to work. And I find it very problematic that its face is always towards us. And I can understand if it was locked and its face was basically, um, locked to us. But the fact that they say it's rotating and we never see the back of it and they say, Oh, it's just because of our relative position to the earth, it's almost too perfect to believe. I understand that's an argument from the incredulity, but I find that it's very hard to believe and I hope they're right because if they built space
Speaker 5: (01:00:47)
just arguing, um, you can look at it. We'll get every muse and solar system. I'm you, they're all totally locked as well. Uh, you know, you [inaudible] you can look at the music Jupiter and you observe these things for yourself. You know, I mean, being tightly locked isn't an abnormal thing. Um, and when you actually look into the reasons why it happens based on the heliocentric model, it has to happen.
Speaker 2: (01:01:14)
Okay. Then I've got another question. So the earth is an overlay spheroid I understand. It's so a minute Leo blade, you can't see it. But the idea is that it's spinning. So it's kind of like hand tossed pizza. It's getting chubbier in the middle as it spins. How come we don't have any pictures of old blade planets anywhere. The only one that we're told as a blade is the earth. And yet our imagery of it is all very spherical. Spherical is a ping pong ball. Where are all the old late planets?
Speaker 5: (01:01:42)
Well, um, again, there's a reason why our plan is only very slightly old. Like you would have to assume that other clients would only have a very, a slight obliqueness. Um, did we, we don't really see Pat plates spinning like a whirling top. Uh, so you would have to think that the centrifugal forces are never there to make that actually happen. Um, I don't know what would happen if there was a planet spinning, you know, it was so faster. It would flatten itself out. I'm not, I'm not sure, but I think I could say with certainty that we've never observed appliance spitting enough for the [inaudible] bleakness to be that news.
Speaker 2: (01:02:22)
Okay, that's fair. Um, couple of the questions. One, there's no space dust. So if I get a little bit of a dust storm where I live, I can't see the mountain peaks eight miles away. And yet between earth and the moon, quarter of a million miles, there's not enough dust to cloud up even a single star between the earth and Mars is millions of miles. Yet there's no clouds at night in outer space blocking any stars. And for the amount of tonnage of debris up there and the amount of dust that's actually hitting the earth every day, there ought to be some kind of cloud cover beyond our immediate atmosphere out there in space. At least occluding the stars here and there. And I never see it.
Speaker 5: (01:03:00)
I mean the sitting clients is XYZ spaces massive. And there, there isn't that you massive dust clouds just kind of rolling around in space. Um, um, Oh, I would say a good way to kind of put this into perspective is that if you look at the rings of Saturn, right? You would think that they're kind of a hard tangible thing. There's a ring, but no, there's like an average about a kilometer. Uh, yeah. Maybe more between kind of the objects that are inside his rings. There's nothing, you know, it's not like a whole bunch of tidy pop things together that you could grab as well. It's just because it's so massive. It looks like they're closer together and I suppose it's the same as space space is just so massive. The any clouds of dust are going to be sued if you, so they're never really going to be an issue for us to see or deal with.
Speaker 2: (01:03:54)
I just figured after millions of miles, because the amount of dust in terms of like the weight of dust, let's say there might be a ton of dust between me and that mountain peak eight miles away, but I would just think that it would aggregate and it would accumulate and at least once in a while we'd have a dark patch in the sky. I was told by space news.com that there is a dust moon orbiting the earth between the earth and the moon and it is 70 times wider than the moon and it could hypothetically black out the moon on any night. And yet I've never seen this dustmen so a lot of my disbelief comes from, I've never seen a lot of the things they say are up there.
Speaker 4: (01:04:29)
[inaudible]
Speaker 5: (01:04:32)
um, I mean most of the things they say are up there, you can literally observe yourself with any commercial grade telescope. Um, well I think one thing I have to ask you is when we go to things like we are learning about gravitational waves and when we're detecting gravitational waves, we're like, Oh, what is this all just keeping up the goal? I am just inventing more things to, to keep the light going. What would be the point of investing all that money in creating Lego if space isn't a real thing?
Speaker 4: (01:05:05)
[inaudible]
Speaker 2: (01:05:06)
uh, because space is ultimately the religion that's being used to ensnare the entire human race and throw them back into feudalism.
Speaker 4: (01:05:14)
Yeah.
Speaker 2: (01:05:14)
Oh, sorry about that. Yeah. The reason why I'm is, uh, because the idea of outer space is the linchpin that holds this whole false paradigm, utopian vision together, outer space as a utopian vision. And I think that all the sciences are being perverted or Curver to fit this end. You know, there are physicists right now who say that the universe is flat, right? They say it's a flat, infinite universe. I find a lot of people who they probably are legitimately, um, pure intentions doing their work as they think they should be doing. But at some point it goes from science into pseudoscience. Just like the reporters on the ground for the news media, they may be well intentioned thinking, they're just reporting the news. But whoever runs a corporation has an ulterior motive. And so I'm saying there's a lot of good natured people in all these different fields who are being misled. And I can tell you the astronauts are not being misled if they're, if this thing is true, if the earth is flat, every single astronaut is an actor through and through. Some of them are scuba divers and pilots, but they're actors, not space travelers. Okay. Alright, so let's [inaudible]
Speaker 5: (01:06:20)
say I'm a, I'm a kid growing up and uh, I love space and I want to be an astronaut and I've worked really hard and I call it my degrees and I have gone through the NASA trade in program
Speaker 2: (01:06:30)
[inaudible] space. I think you're told when you're moving up through the ranks you're going to be selected for certain things. There's a TV show in the UK called space cadets and it describes the process of choosing the contestants for what was going to be a hoax. And they selected people who they knew would fall for it. They have various indicators and five of the people on this craft believe they were in low earth orbit for the duration of the TV show. So I think there's a lot of deception. I think it's a need to know basis. And I think that deception is the rule, not the exception here when it comes to the sciences high up. I think the media, the government controlled media and the government controlled science are all in a conspiracy to hide the nature of the world that we're on. And I think that NASA is just a religion at this point. Okay. Um, so,
Speaker 5: (01:07:27)
you know, there'd be no point in anyone actually trying to,
Speaker 2: (01:07:31)
uh, go and become an astronaut. Then I would say this. Okay. So if, let's say you wanted to become an astronaut, I would say, um, obviously keep doing it. The skills you learn, everything's going to matter, but at some point you're going to be entering into, um, you're going to have to enter into the realm of either being a dupe or one of the Dupers on the space. Cadet show. Five of the people on deck were actors, the other five were the dupes. So it's just a matter of what side are you going to be on? If you're going to be at Duke, you're going to be a useful idiot your whole life. Uh, that's what you'll do. And I think the people who are holding up the deception are the ones who are selected, the ones who are willing to lie and deceive, to gain an upper hand in life. It's a criminal conspiracy. And you think about it.
Speaker 5: (01:08:14)
Um, I mean if you,
Speaker 1: (01:08:17)
if the earth was flat, then yes, it would be a criminal conspiracy, but there's so much evidence that says the earth isn't flat. That's the thing. Um, I've talked to you about, uh, [inaudible] rotation and, and you kind of skipped over pendulums and, uh, of you that there's a channel or a channel called the the gentleman physicist that did this and it's something I'm trying to recreate at the moment where you can use a pendulum to kind of locate your position based on the amount of swing that the pendulum gives over a certain amount of time. Um, okay.
Speaker 5: (01:08:48)
Do you agree that pendulums can show the rotation of the earth?
Speaker 2: (01:08:52)
Okay. What about vocals, pendulum and things like that? Right. I think, I think Foucault's pendulum. I think the Cavendish experiment, I think these things are all just meant to give an appeal to an authority and appeal to tradition. I think that these are all just things that need to be tried out. Again, I don't think we should site experiments from 150. I don't think that we should have settled science. Like the climate change. Scientists want to say absolutely and [inaudible] and that's one thing. Science
Speaker 5: (01:09:19)
isn't a settled thing. You know, our, our, our knowledge is always increasing. Um, but when you say about the Cavendish, there is people that have done it recently. There's um, a global effort called BM verbal, um, an absolute amazing guy. Everyone please check out BM verbals channel. If one of my mods could put his link in the chat and he has it. He's um, he lives in South Korea and in his apartment he has recreated his own cabin dish experiment and the data shows that mass attracts mass. Um, so there is evidence that mass attracts mass and gravity is what we say is
Speaker 2: (01:09:55)
okay. So some guy in South Korea in his apartment figured this out, see, like, look, if it's repeatable. So if we can get people all across the planet to do it at the same time, repeatable. And this is why I said earlier, what would I, what I would find compelling is if you could get 10 or 15 people on a single night to catch the same ISS transit and put that footage back to back and make it contiguous because there's no way you could refute that.
Speaker 5: (01:10:22)
Okay. Um, I mean that maybe that's something that flower firs should be trying to do, to disprove at once. And for all a w when, when I say about [inaudible] doing it in, in his own apartment, that kind of says to me that it is a repeatable thing that anybody can do. I mean, there's no special equipment involved here that I've just managed to do it himself and over refinement of figure out the best way to actually measure the, the, the phenomenon of mass attracting mass. Um, and the reason why a I wanted to talk about gravity is because when we look at gravity and we use Newton's law of universal gravitation, uh, ethicals GM one M two of our squared that says that we have to be honest veer. Um, so that fundamental equation, uh, the, the law of as it's called, is that something that you dispute?
Speaker 2: (01:11:18)
Um, I have to dispute it as a pseudoscience at this point. I think everything that we've, um, been pretty much educated on has been to reinforce this basic notion of the spinning ball and Helio centrism. And so, no, I really don't think we should be appealing to ancient Greeks either. I hate it when people say all the Greeks knew it was a ball. I don't think that's valid. Um, personally I think the arguments that are made for the ball and for flat earth and a lot of them are bad. Um, I don't think that, um, boats go over the horizon, but I don't think we should feel the earth spinning if it were spinning.
Speaker 5: (01:11:51)
I mean, that didn't really answer the question of, um, do you agree that there is this downward et cetera enforce the, is making things accelerate towards the ground?
Speaker 2: (01:12:00)
Oh yeah. As I said earlier, yeah. I don't dispute any of what we observe. I'm just saying that the, uh, underlying causes or explanations are being skewed. So they're taking real science and then they're augmenting it with a little bit of, you know, a little bit of ball, throw some curve in there. They're throwing this all for a little curve here with this stuff. So
Speaker 5: (01:12:20)
[inaudible] the thing about the, the acceleration is the, um, it changes depending on where you are on the earth. Uh, you and the centrifugal, et cetera. Aeration could be slightly different as certain points. And based on the math of our model, you, we can calculate exactly what the acceleration should be at what points on the earth. So why would the acceleration be different at different points on the earth? And why would that comport with, with the model of it being a sphere?
Speaker 2: (01:12:50)
Uh, that's a good question. But also when you're starting off with the presumption, you're on a ball and you're measuring the acceleration, different points, you know, you're starting with that as an assumption that you know, the size to be 25 K and I don't think that starting, I think guy start ground zero and I'm saying flat in rejecting the stuff that comes from NASA, the space agencies and anything trickling down from that, assuming this basic paradigm to be true. I mean this also throws in into um, question, uh, timelines involved, you know, big bang. How many is the earth? 4 billion years old dinosaurs. All this stuff is up for question right now in my mind.
Speaker 5: (01:13:27)
Okay. I mean there's so much to unpack there. Um, I just want to kind of really stick with the, the gravity thing of the moon because there isn't an assumption of the ball. Um, when you do these gravity measurements, um, yeah, you can do the Cavendish experiment. Uh, and then there's a similar similar thing called the Shelly and experiment where they literally manage that. They use the, the mass of a mountain to register the, the movement of a plum Barb and the, it shows that mass attracts mass, not just downwards but you know, sideways, whichever, wherever masses, massive tracks mass. And based on the calculations that we get from these experiments that are repeatable, uh, and are done all the time near, the only way that they work out is if we have a sphere near the maps for the universal law. Gravitational attraction doesn't work if you're on a flat desk.
Speaker 2: (01:14:23)
Well or plate this, yeah, this is, I guess what I want to see fine tuned. And this is where this argument ultimately has to go is, um, where is the legitimate science ending and where is ideology being inserted? There were people can say with equal certainty that the earth is heating up and climate change is a fact. And I'm saying, well, where does your actual meteorology end? And your agenda of saying the earth is overheating because of America, where is that being inserted? And I think that the science has been corrupted. I think everything you're citing, um, the information you're citing from it sounds legit, but I'm really calling into question whether you can cite these as sources.
Speaker 4: (01:15:01)
Both.
Speaker 5: (01:15:01)
Like I said, when there's things that are done all the time, like the Cavendish experiment and it clearly shows that there is an attraction between mass. It leads you to only one conclusion.
Speaker 2: (01:15:13)
Look, I've got a guy who calls me up sometimes. Um, he was a, um, he was in then he was in the coast guard and this is like in 2001 and they went and they did a circumnavigation and so you know, at the time he believed he was on a ball. Anyway, he was up on the lookout deck and I asked him how high up were you? He said 40 feet up above sea level with the bug islands is, and he said he was getting visual confirmation of boats is 60 miles away, verified by radar, 60 miles consistently the whole trip. And so we did a little bit of a math on this and it's like, well look, the math there would say that we're not on a ball because these vessels should not have been visible from the view from that, from that distance. And so visual confirmation at 60 miles and 40 feet up would be contradicted by this eight inch.
Speaker 5: (01:16:01)
I mean I, I, I would love to, to see the photos and everything cooperate in that. But obviously whenever you're talking about photos and looking at stuff that if there is refraction to be taken into account and it kind of works both ways, you know, glue Burford can say, Oh well that that was refraction. Cole's not in, so can flatter refers and it's very hard to actually say without being there and know in the, the, the humidity, the temperature of, of the water and everything. Exactly what you should be able to see at what point. But you know that that's not really something tangible and hard. The I can go and recreate myself and, and it just comes back to something as simple as the Cavendish experiment proven that master tracks mass. And the reason I keep bringing that up is because the math works when you do it from the center of something to the center of something. And that itself means that we have to be on a sphere.
Speaker 2: (01:16:59)
Okay, I'm going to take a closer look at all this and we'll have to do a followup. I just want to point out, look, if we're right, there are certain things that no longer can exist. So if the is not a ball and if there is no low earth orbit, then there's zero chance of nuclear Holocaust. Nothing's going to be flying over that distance. Um, if this is the case, global warming is going to be fake and you don't have to worry about asteroids. And they said that when you wiped out in 2029, you've got to get to Mars because that asteroid upon office is scheduled to come kill us on that Friday the 13th in April. Well, if we're right, none of these things that you have to fear need to be feared anymore.
Speaker 5: (01:17:38)
Well, um, I don't think I fear anything like, uh, astral ashtray, Jay, anything. Because if it was coming, we wouldn't be able to innocent about it. Um, but it's all very kind of wishy washy for from your point, I'm not trying to be rude, but there is no solidness coming from any of your arguments is very much just you think that one is lying to you. Therefore these things are probably well improperly.
Speaker 2: (01:18:07)
Well no, it's pretty solid when I'm seeing through as a video editor green-screen when I see a rear screen projection, when I see, um, a lack of parallax appropriate parallax on the moon footage. So what I'm saying is know what I'm being shown is a bunch of cartoons and it reminds me of when I was a kid, I was, I was given a lot of myths to believe with a religion. And with the space program, it's the same thing. I'm just choosing not to believe in your really expensive, overpriced religious art that pretends to be a description of reality and our place in it. That's all. And it's not wishy washy because what you're giving us is utter crap. If the ISS gave us graphics as good as that movie Sandra Bullock was in gravity, I'd be on board. I'd be totally on board. But what they show us has too many holes in it and it would, I'm just doing due diligence here. You know, I'm not even that radical of a skeptic.
Speaker 5: (01:18:58)
Even talking about the ISS, I've never seen any footage that couldn't be explained where we've, you know, normal logic. Uh, and you know, I honestly, I've never seen anything that has convinced me that anything on the ISS is fake. Uh, I, you know, I've seen all the videos that a lot of flight reefers put out saying that, Oh, this person just faded out. Um, all of a sudden, and Oh, well this person was clearly on a harness and you know, it, it's all just encouraging city more than anything.
Speaker 2: (01:19:28)
Wait, wait, wait. Did you see the one where the microphone went inside of Chris Hetfield's neck? No blood and that microphone had went into his throat. That's how bad the augmented virtual reality layers. We're overlapping and we're laughing at this stuff. We're laughing because Chris Hadfield has a microphone stuck through his neck and you guys got to pretend like you can't see that. You've got to pretend like you can't see it. It's a naked emperor and we're saying he's got no clothes and you're like, Oh, well you just don't have the sophistication to see these fine ropes.
Speaker 5: (01:19:58)
Nope. See, I, uh, I've not seen one with a microphone in the throat. Uh, but all the, maybe I have, I'm not sure, but a lot of the ones I've seen, for instance, the, um, I'm sure you've seen the one where there's national going off to a side room and he kind of feeds out as he's going into the side room and yeah, that can be explained simply as a transition between scenes, you know, um, the, the rest of the rooms not changing. The only thing changing there is the, the fact the astronaut is moving. So the scene has transitioned as the astronaut leaves the room, it's going to look like he's just disappearing. If you then putting up just as an image of the room with nothing in
Speaker 2: (01:20:36)
yeah. Right, right. That'd be, that'd be a crossfade. Okay. A crossfade wouldn't count. Okay. Here's one for you. There's one where Chris Hadfield is eating asparagus and it's really gross. He's like licking his fingers. And I'm like, dude, how many times have you washed your hands up there? And 20 years the same astronauts and cosmonauts if you can, using that same toilet. And he, so he's sitting there with his fingers eating asparagus cause you know, using sanitizer in your hands isn't enough. So he's using a [inaudible], he's eating asparagus and you actually see him cutting the packet open to the scissors and there's a point in the video, look it up, Chris Hadfield eating asparagus with a scissors disappear and move to the other side of the room. They glitch. That glitch cannot be explained with logic. It can be explained with final cut pro for and sloppy editing.
Speaker 5: (01:21:23)
Come on, I can edit better than that. So this is one thing that gets me right is that NASA are clever enough to have perpetrated this hoax for the last 50 years. At least a year. They fooled everyone into thinking that the, the, the earth that we went to, the moon, they managed to do amazing effects. You 50 years ago, the most movie producers say would have been impossible back then, but they're also stupid enough to leave in a glitch of something popping for one side of the room to the other. If I was an organization perpetrate in this enormous hoax, I would not let shit slip through. I've only just started using Adobe after effects and stuff and learning the intricacies of compositing and everything. And you know, I wouldn't make those mistakes. So I don't think if NASA were smart enough to do this, they would also be stupid enough to make those little mistakes.
Speaker 2: (01:22:21)
Yeah, that's a good point. That's a very good point. And I think, um, and I've noticed this not just with space, but with a lot of the news on the ground, like, and there is a lot of fake news. We can agree like Jessie small it fake, lynched himself. You know, we see these instances of fake news hoax is leaking out there. You know, 66% of reported hate crimes have turned out to be fake. So what I'm saying is this, it's always been this way. The space program has always been sloppy. The media hoaxes have always been sloppy. The differences in 2019 everyone has a smartphone and everybody shares information. So the difference is now we're finally noticing and they weren't ready for it. In other words, we woke up as a collective of hyper critical awake individuals scrutinizing this footage. We're paying attention and, but you could look back 10 years, 20 years, 25 years. And it's laughable. They contradict themselves. So many times the Coke Wars with Pepsi and Coke went up and outer space and they were drinking Pepsi and Coke in space. When now they say, and this is from NASA's a, their food department. Well, we can't have carbonation in space. It doesn't work. So like, which is at Koch Wars in space or you can't drink carbonation space because the way the carbonation doesn't, uh, it doesn't separate properly, whatever. They're constantly contradicting themselves. They've been sloppy and goofy from day one. The challenger astronauts are not dead.
Speaker 5: (01:23:38)
Come on now, that's a grabber, not go there. Cause uh, I, I find that disrespectful to the families of, of those people.
Speaker 2: (01:23:46)
Well, I find it disrespectful that those people would disrespect billions of people on the earth, including school children. Did they traumatize that footage wasn't live. There's no reason for them to have wheeled those TVs into our classrooms and showed us the footage. Oh look, kids, we're going to watch a rocket go up. They knew it blew up because that was a replay. So if anybody should be offended, it's me and everybody here who had to watch that BS. So no, I don't think they're dead. I think the whole thing is a farce. I think that URI gagger and the first man in space is also Neil Armstrong. And I wouldn't be surprised if buzz Aldrin isn't just George C. Scott. It's just an act.
Speaker 5: (01:24:23)
Right? Um, I think we're gonna have to, to end it there then, um, uh, when it gets to talks about things like the challenger and that, uh, I find it very hard to continue. Um, so, uh, I do want to say the, it's up. It's been a pretty good talk we've used up to this point. Um, but that just for me, that's just a, the and I kind of can't cross and continue to have a conversation. Um, so, uh,
Speaker 2: (01:24:56)
sure. The feeling, the feeling's mutual. Look man, it's a shock. It's a big slap in the face to find out you've been lied to and deceived and you're on the other side of it. And I think that you'll feel the same thing when you realize that you've been duped. I appreciate you taking the time. I'll look into all the things that you brought up and I will, um, let you know what I think and then if you want to discuss it, those things in particular, we'll go back over those.
Speaker 5: (01:25:17)
Alright, well thank you very much for joining me today. Uh, and yeah, that, that was an interesting talk. Have a nice night. Likewise.
Speaker 2: (01:25:25)
Okay, so here we go. Uh, that's the end of that conversation. So, um, that was a good 90 minutes. I think we covered a lot of ground. He brought up a lot of good points. I think that he's, um, okay, I want to go back and I want to address this thing about the Cavendish and about mass attracting mass. These are things I want to go over. Um, I hope you all had fun. I did. I did. And look, um, a lot of things are triggering for a lot of people. This is the arena that short that we're in. And so, you know, this is just the nature of exposing reality and the fact is, um, we've been lied to. So what are you going to do? You know, Gaslight yourself. Okay. So let's get back on track here. This is Takashi 69. Our newest, a flat earth fanatic wearing a flat earth map on his shirt.
Speaker 2: (01:26:27)
Um, let's see what else we have here yet. Hey, no, it was, um, it was really, uh, an interesting talk. But you can see though, look, we're dealing with more than just the shape of the world here. We're dealing with a difference in world views. We're dealing with a difference in like, look, this is something to a flat earthers as a group of people are not respecting the authorities and to, and too many people that's tantamount to blasphemy or heresy. So anyway, Hey look, we're trying really hard right now to get a uh, bit of publicity on what we're doing. Like when we did this before, you know, we did the billboard before. I think you all have seen it. Research flat earth. Well we have a new plan right now and this could be big. This could be potentially the biggest thing to happen to this topic in a long time.
Speaker 2: (01:27:27)
If we want to blow this up to new audiences and yeah, that will be gnashing of teeth. That will be a lot of crying if we do this right. Okay. So infinite plane radio, coast-to-coast, mobile billboard. Um, I have someone who will match a thousand. We want to get this sponsorship that someone's me actually. So if we can get another $825 on the infinite plane radio coast to coast mobile billboard, it'll be this, it's going to say infinite plane side society down the sides. There's 85 people watching on YouTube right now and all 85 of you flat round, undecided, ablate, all of you, um, do have a vested interest in this thing blowing up. And this billboard will do just a trick. It's actually part of a, a movie tour. Mike's going to go promote his movie rocket man.
Speaker 2: (01:28:23)
And part of the promotion is, um, while he's paying for the trip, the gas and everything, by having somebody rent out this a limousine space and a billboard that's going to be towed. So this is what we are working on right now. It's going to say infinite plane radio. Open phones for open minds, (505) 510-4226. So we're gonna have the phone number on here. We're going to have some provocative billboard on the back. I don't know what yet. We're still working it out. And then we are also going to have the infinite plane side on the side and going to be having this thing live streamed at any of the meetups he goes to. But really what we want to do is we want to grow our audience back up from, you know, 500 live viewers a thousand lives. We want to bring it back up.
Speaker 2: (01:29:13)
If we can get 500 to a thousand people watching and we bring up any topic at the best, you know, the research will come in, it will come in and it's something else. Um, we aren't gate kept and you see it, you saw what happened, right? There's a lot of people do have to gate keep, and I understand on YouTube you have to be gatekeeping your own material. You can't talk about certain things without risking your channel and it's really too much to risk. Uh, what we're trying to do is break out of that entirely by having, uh, really a grass roots organic listener base that isn't just a YouTube audience. And so we're multi-platform when this thing goes across the country. We'll have mixed [inaudible] back on. So they'll be an audio stream at infinite plane radio. It'll be open phones every single night, night after night. Open phones for open minds.
Speaker 2: (01:30:06)
Um, is kind of our catch phrase here. And yeah, everything's on the table. I think that Bigfoot's boring aliens are boring. I think there are far more interesting things to talk about and we get a lot more perspectives this way. So anyway, even if you don't have anything to contribute, that's cool. If you don't mind, just go there and share it. Hit the share button, hit the tweet button. It's a mobile billboard going coast to coast. It'll get a lot of publicity. You've seen the success of our previous, um, billboard campaigns. All right, so I'm gonna go ahead and take off. Thanks for joining. Um, if you missed it, just go back to the beginning. I'm leaving this video up. Yeah. Basically. Um, fight the flat earth is one of these, um, globe defenders who's been pretty much on the offensive for what, more than a year now. Uh, he's got a good following of people, I think a 17,000 people. And what he has done is he has actually elevated the level of intellectual honesty. He did make a point, you know, I say, you know, we shouldn't, we should see more. Oh, blade plan. It's, well, nothing spins that fast. Right? So that's a valid point. Then my question is then why the hell are you telling us these things are obeyed in the first place? Anyway, this is chief Crow into the black space is fake a F
Speaker 6: (01:31:28)
you can see those stars. Oh yeah. We're never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side. Wait, I mean, it's planned, but there's all kinds of that [inaudible] space space. There's more than stars. You can see planets [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] the deep space away from [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] what happens if you get a week on that? [inaudible] [inaudible] research. April he does on the league at NYU would do lose air here.