Thanks for everyone around the globe tuning in to this recap show we're going to have
on The Baptist Bias, a special episode.
It's really relaxed, folks, but we've got Ben the Baptist in studio co-hosting, giving
us your thoughts.
What did you think about the show, Ben?
The debate this past Tuesday night, well, there was some drama to start, but I think
it was highly entertaining.
It was definitely controversial, and it was one of those things, like I said, this past
Thursday night, when you see a flaming car crash on the side of the road, you cannot
help but turn and look, and when you have a flat earther trying to prove that the planet
is in fact a pancake with a glass dome on top of it, how is that not a car crash?
But I have to say, Pastor Shelley, thank you for taking it to him and for defending common
sense and reality.
So you didn't change your mind?
You're not a flat earther or?
No, didn't even come close.
But I will say that what I found interesting about the debate is whenever you spoke, I
felt like I could understand what you were saying.
Whereas when your opponent spoke, there was a lot of language used that I felt like was
all just a smoke screen to make it appear as if the individual really is well studied
and some sort of intellectual.
And I feel like that's actually not the mark of someone who has intellect and articulation
skills.
Somebody like that is able to take a complex idea and break it down and make it palatable
for the average person.
That is what takes true intellect, in my opinion, rather than snowing people with terminology
you know deep down they don't understand in order to make yourself here to be at some
sort of higher level of knowledge than everyone else.
So I appreciated that you used words easy to understand.
It's just because I'm a simple bumpkin you know and you just have to be a simple bumpkin
right?
Evidently, yeah.
And you know what Pastor Shelley I also think that I have to commend you for the patience
that you showed.
You didn't blow a gasket or lose it when at times it's arguable that you would have been
justified in doing so but you kept yourself cool, calm and collected and stayed on target.
It got spicy there at the beginning.
I know a lot of other people pretty opinionated on the show and in fact you can call in tonight.
We're going to be taking calls if people want to share their opinion on the show or bring
up any specific talking points or evidences.
I'm kind of ready to put this stupid flatter thing behind us and of course I don't have
anyone telling me I can't use the word stupid so I really appreciate that of course.
But you can call in 231-Baptist, we'll be taking calls and you can call in now.
We'll try to take the calls pretty much right when they come in because obviously I want
to make sure we're finishing the point we're on but there's no real specific pattern to
the show but I want to go through the video and go through the debate and kind of talk
about some of the things that my opponent Austin Whitsitt had brought up and I just
want to show the foolishness of their viewpoint and just kind of slow down on some of the
word salad that he used consistently throughout the show because unfortunately it was so
fast paced and a lot of arguments were being thrown out there quickly that often there
wasn't necessarily time to kind of slow down and pay attention to what was just said but
I think when you do slow down and you pay attention, it's really clear that he never
made a good point.
Of course there is no such thing as a good point when it comes to the flat earth viewpoint,
geocentricity, any of these things and so I'm really excited to slowly walk through
and again I know a lot of people, a lot of people are flat earthers that watch the show.
I mean it seemed like I would say at least two thirds of our audience is probably flat
earthers that were watching the show or some variation thereof and a lot of comments on
our video.
In fact, I was looking at some of the top comments.
Here's the top comment from realagentofchange, this is the top comment on our debate, "Globe
Earth is so yesterday.
Flat Earth is inevitable.
It will only grow from this point on."
They had 38 likes, so apparently flat Earth is just so inevitable, Ben.
The next highest comment, RepublicanRaver said, "BaptistPastor bring a bunch of nonsense
NASA propaganda.
No scripture."
Oh wait, CircleRaven, so he's like, "No scripture except for all the scriptures that he brought
up."
It was a little disappointing how that show started just because I had a really specific
opening that I wanted to get to, but it did of course include a few insults here and there.
I don't really truly believe that's an ad hominem to use an insult simply because the
Bible uses a lot of these, but this is the screen that I was going to put on the show
and I'm guessing it would have been honked at right off the bat, but I wanted to specifically
bring up how the flat earth arguments kind of fall in these six categories and really
I didn't hear anything that really fell outside of this specific category.
The number one point is that you can see things farther away than expected and really that
is what Austin's viewpoint hinged on was this idea of he kept saying "falsifying the radius"
and I would say I would maybe broaden this category a hair because he's also bringing
up what he calls line of sight and other radio wave propagation or microwave propagation
but simply just things are going further than they expect therefore the earth must be bigger
than we have calculated therefore the radius calculation is wrong.
That's basically his argument and he wants to just basically stay on that one argument
because in his mind if he can prove somehow that the radius is wrong then everything else
is totally false and we can just throw it all out and he doesn't have to answer any
of these other questions.
He doesn't have to answer any of the questions that I brought up.
It's just simply let's focus only on trying to disprove the radius of the earth and he
uses radio waves as an example or visually seeing things and of course a lot of flat
earth videos I've seen.
It's just them going to some body of water with a camcorder, zooming in and seeing a
city from across a long distance and just saying oh see we shouldn't be able to see
this in theory so therefore all of the NASA stuff is a lie and everything about the globe
is a lie.
I'm kind of curious have you run into this or heard people make this kind of argument
about things being too far away and you can see them or something like that?
I have not encountered this argument very much.
I haven't interacted with flat earthers to the degree maybe that you have or just in
my life where they brought that argument to me.
The only arguments I've ever heard from them are just them twisting certain Bible verses
and trying to tell me that the Bible teaches it and the only time I've ever interacted
with them is in a church setting when we had some flat earthers in Jacksonville in our
church plant there.
So no I haven't interacted with this specifically.
Well and again second point is another thing that he brought up in his opening statement.
It looks flat, feels flat so therefore they have the burden of proof.
He says the Bible is consistent with it, they say the government lies, they appeal to debunk
scientific theories such as deocentrism, the ether.
And then they also just appeal to the idea that since there's the big bang theory in
evolution then we can't really trust science.
And so I really don't think that I heard hardly any arguments outside of this camp.
I know that we heard a lot of things that were kind of unintelligible or at least you
weren't capable of perceiving exactly what the argument at first, but do you remember
any arguments outside of this window?
I think you summed it up well in these six categories right here.
When you bring up the idea that the flat earth is sort of the brainchild of evolutionary
biology, which I don't even understand how you can jump from A to Z there, but this is
the classic throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The macroevolution is a lie, therefore I'm going to believe the earth is a pancake.
What?
Sure.
So I want to play the clips of what Austin was saying and we'll slowly walk through them.
I saw somebody says, I don't know what their name is, Huda LaDattleBear says usually the
winning side doesn't do a quote recap.
Maybe they should go to Austin's Witsit's YouTube channel because almost every single
debate he's ever done he has a recap video.
So, I guess that doesn't really follow the logic.
We've literally done it every time we've had a debate, so it's twice now.
Yeah, of course.
This is the third one because we did one after Pastor Anderson's R. Red Heifer, this is the
third debate show.
I guess we didn't do a recap, in all fairness, after the King James specific discussion.
But that wasn't on our show, that was a different platform.
But it wasn't really, there wasn't really much to go on because our opponent's position
was very, it wasn't even very contrasting from our viewpoint, so there wasn't necessarily
a lot to bring up.
And it wasn't a really popular show, so there wasn't necessarily to do a follow-up there.
But let's go ahead and play from the 18-minute mark of the debate.
This is Austin's opening statement, so this is basically his first time to kind of get
in there and show.
Let's see if we can play that and we may stop it throughout and I just want to kind
of address some of the points that he made.
Go ahead.
And go.
All right.
Yeah.
So thanks for having me on.
Thanks for modding, Owen.
So the position is pretty simple.
We were kind of all told that the earth is a spinning ball and then it flies through
space.
But if you actually think about everything logically, we need to step back.
And so the default position is actually that the earth is a stationary plane.
So yeah, I take the affirmative position that it is a stationary plane and that's supported
with every, you know, empirical piece of evidence.
All right, stop it.
So we obviously don't experience the earth moving.
Stop it.
Back it up.
No, it's okay.
So here's the thing.
He said that the stationary plane is supported by every empirical evidence, every single
evidence.
So if we had even just one piece of evidence that contradicted that, he would be lying
here, which of course we have plenty.
And I want to get through this opening statement before I get to some of those empirical evidences,
but I just wanted to point out that he claimed every single empirical evidence supports only
the stationary plane, which would mean that there's no evidence or proof for a heliocentric
model or specifically the sphere itself.
Okay.
So let's go ahead and keep playing.
In fact, we have highly precise interferometry measurements that have shown that the earth's
not moving.
We obviously see the horizon's horizontal.
We actually use...
Pause it for a second again.
...all civil engineering to build everything.
I just wanna point out this brilliant statement.
We can see that the horizon is horizontal.
That's the point that he just made.
So does he expect the horizon to be curved or something this way?
We see the horizon is horizontal.
Wow.
That's how...
I mean, it's funny when you just slow down and you actually pay attention to the statements
by themselves.
He just said that the horizon is horizontal as his opening statement.
All right, let's keep playing.
We see everything in the world as if the earth is flat.
We fly the plane as if the earth is flat and stationary.
So on the surface, pun intended, right, everything is the default being that the earth is flat
and stationary.
Of course, we see everything in the sky move, etc.
So there's a claim that the opposite of that is true.
So actually in terms of logic, right, that has a pretty substantial burden of proof.
We've already substantiated it just with the default empirical position, but that's kind
of the meta here.
The other thing that happens a lot is people, typically they say, well, if the earth is
flat, then how does this work?
You know, like, oh, well, what is the moon then?
You know, and I've never been to the moon, by the way, no one has, and I don't know what
it is.
I don't need to know what it is to falsify this claim that the earth is a globe, right?
So falsification is independent of replacement.
That's important.
And hopefully we can keep that in mind going through the conversation, because if the tactic
is just to say, if I can get a gotcha on the flat earth there of how the whole universe
works and somehow the earth becomes a ball again, that's an illogical way to go about
it.
And then I'll go through some of the evidences that we have that directly refute it.
You go back into time, you get to 1887, Michelson-Morley, they did an interferometry test and it showed
that the earth is not moving.
So much so that the grabbler named Einstein had to come in and change all physics and
say that time slows down and the measuring rod contracted to deceive us into thinking
that the earth is stationary.
And that's the modern claim of physics today.
The claim the earth is moving through space, you actually have to say time slows down to
trick you into thinking so.
And that's a positive claim that literally can't be verified at all.
That test has been replicated hundreds of times, even in modern history.
So the interferometry measurements show that the earth's not moving.
It's the most precise way to measure motion in the world.
And actually, when we do detect the rotational motion with, say, ringways or gyros, it changes
with altitude, which is impossible on a sphere.
The actual measurement would have to stay the same at latitude regardless of altitude.
So that's a direct falsification of the claim that the earth is moving, which is actually,
again, the positive claim needs to be substantiated anyway.
As to the flat part of it, like I said, we already utilize the earth as if it's flat.
We make plane survey measurements.
We literally measure the earth to be flat.
That's how we do civil engineering to build runways, railways, bridges.
Our entire life is literally built upon the understanding the earth's flat and the flat
earth measurements called plane survey measurements.
What then happens is people take those flat earth measurements, stitch them together and
claim the earth's a globe with a presupposed R value.
And so that's going to get into how we know for sure that this globe model that was brought
to us by Jesuits isn't correct.
We actually falsified the radius.
So if the radius value is wrong, the entire model is wrong because the globe model's day
and night cycle uses that, gravity uses that, distances on the earth use that, everything
about the model boils down to the radius value of the sphere that is proposed.
The way that we have falsified that, and there are many ways, we've shown that the horizon
is in fact not physical, it's apparent, and we've seen the horizon over 10 times further
than it needs to be requiring the radius value to be 250,000 miles away, basically just saying
the R word, saying refraction doesn't make it true you have to substantiate that.
We also have line of sight radio wave transmissions that go far beyond the limit of the curvature
of the earth and microwave transmissions up to 10,000 miles, and it should get blocked
to say a couple hundred miles, and so that's a physical test that shows that the earth
is a plane.
And there are many more, right, so really just to reiterate it, because I think I'm
coming up on the five minutes, the simple part is that we have our burden of proof substantiated
as the default, that the earth is a stationary plane, that the stuff in the sky moves, and
then the claim that the earth is actually the opposite of that requires the burden of
proof, and we went a step further and even tested that claim and falsified the rate R
value and claim of motion, therefore, you know, it can't be anything other than a stationary
plane.
Okay, so let's pause there.
And so I wanted to give a fair chance of him going through his entire opening statement
here.
Number one, he says that every empirical evidence supports a stationary plane.
He says that we don't experience the earth moving, which again is basically my point
two from our argument chart.
He brings up the Michelson-Morley experiment and claims that essentially that that proves
that the earth is not moving.
He brings with it the rise in his horizontal.
He also said all civil engineering is based on specifically that there's no curvature.
There are legitimate bridges that are built where you can actually see the curvature
of the earth.
So there's two that I wanted to bring up.
There's the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge which you have essentially two major poles that
are put there and it's basically at the base closer together than it is at the top.
This specific article even goes through and it kind of illustrates what we're talking
about but it's approximately like one and a half inches or one and five eighths inches
that the Verrazano Narrows Bridge when you take those two major columns and you look
at specifically the base versus the top that the bases are closer together than the top
and they've also measured that they're perfectly straight.
So they're perfectly straight, perfectly level, somehow the bases are closer together than
the tops.
This is due to the curvature of the earth.
Again, the curvature of the earth is estimated to be approximately 8 inches per mile.
So you're talking about something that would have to be very large and very big to see
any kind of scale where this is impacted whatsoever.
So this is a specific example.
I think we have another link, maybe we can pull up the Humber Bridge which is also another
example of this and we can even show maybe some pictures.
I think I had a picture in there of specifically that bridge but these suspension bridges where
they have these wires that are going top between these columns, they have to specifically account
for a little bit of curvature.
Yeah, here's a picture of the Barton Humber Bridge that connects also to Hessel which
is in UK.
So this is a UK bridge.
The bridge that we brought up was one in New York.
What do you think?
Like, he's saying all civil engineering.
What about this engineering?
How about this as an exception right here, yeah, I mean, it's pretty straightforward.
I'm not really sure what else I can add other than that's pretty straightforward and seems
to make sense to me.
You'd have to say that they're lying on that point.
I guess so.
Or I guess, you know, to play devil's advocate, do flat earthers argue that there is a curvature?
It's just maybe not as pronounced or something like that?
I mean, is that something you've heard?
No.
I think flat is ...
It's like literally, they take it literally to the bank.
Obviously, there's elevation change.
So when they say flat, I mean, I think it's relative and it doesn't seem like they ever
bring up elevation change too.
But here's the thing.
If these columns or these posts that are put into the river or this portion of water, if
they can measure them to be perfectly level and perpendicular to the ground and be perfectly
straight and the other one's perfectly straight, and yet the bases are closer together than
the tops, there's really no explanation except for curvature at that point.
You can always have elevation changes and other things, but just to claim, well, no
one ever does this.
These people are saying that they did and that they do.
Basically the complete opposite of what he said is true.
But again, he wants to focus the entire argument on falsifying the radius.
And again, okay, but show me the repeatable experiment.
Because if you can falsify the radius with one of these line of sight radio transmissions
or microwave transmissions that he's bringing up, then why don't they show us that exact
experiment?
Now, I have a couple of graphics, radio wave propagation, and I wanted to just at least
show this so people know what he's bringing up and the argument that he's making.
Can I ask a quick question here?
Yeah, go for it.
And I don't want to change the subject, so we can maybe go back to this.
But did I hear him say planes, like aircraft?
No.
He's talking about something else.
Or is he talking about something else?
He's talking about a geometric plane.
Like he's just talking about a flat plane.
Okay.
Because that's my wheelhouse there with aviation, and there's an argument made there.
But maybe if we have time at the end, I wanted to say something about aviation.
So you can see here, this is what he's bringing up, is this idea of radio wave propagation.
And so he's saying line of sight, this is where the radio waves are essentially just
going as in a straight line.
So at some point, they would not work due to the curvature of the earth.
Whereas there's other radio wave propagation, such as signal propagation or wave propagation
that really does bend or can be transmitted through a few different methods that do allow
it to go beyond the curvature of the earth.
So you can kind of see that ground wave propagation, the sky wave propagation.
And show if you can this other graphic, the second one below that, the radio wave propagation.
So here's another example though, too, of like how radio waves can be transmitted.
Notice sometimes they can bounce off of the earth, they can bounce off of satellites,
they can bounce off the sky and be refracted.
And so you could still even receive these particular radio waves.
But if you really believed you had a line of sight radio wave transmission repeatable
project, why wouldn't you say, "Look, stand at this point, stand at this other point,
we've measured the elevation, we've measured the curvature, anybody can go out there, anybody
can do this experiment."
Because if they had done that or they could do that, all flat-earthers would point to
that specific experiment.
So again, he makes these claims, but he doesn't have any specific example or any specific
experiment where we can do what he's claiming.
So again, it's not compelling when he literally just has no experiment that he's pointing
out that we can all do and verify ourselves.
Well, that's appeal to authority, right?
Well, I guess he's the authority in that argument, but sure.
What he calls or claimed I did was a baseless assertion or a baseless claim because there's
no evidence to support it.
But he brought up this idea that there's no such thing as an empirical evidence disproving
a stationary plane.
Well that's not true.
He pulled up this video and I want to play a couple snippets of it of the Foucault pendulum.
Now there was a French physicist named Lyon Foucault and he actually wanted to demonstrate
Be careful with the pronunciation on that.
I mean, yeah, I'm not French so No, you could slip into saying something
else.
Yeah.
Go ahead.
No, sure, but anyways, this specific video is kind of explaining he created this pendulum
that would show and demonstrate the curvature of the earth.
So let's play the first minute of this and we'll pause it and then I want to play the
last part, but it's going to explain this.
We all know earth is flat, a round spinning sphere, but how do we prove this?
French physicist Lyon Foucault came up with a brilliant idea and built a large pendulum.
The point being that the ball will not only swing back and forth, but rotate as well.
But why on earth would this prove earth is a spinning sphere?
To answer this question, we need to first understand why the pendulum rotates.
Let's place the pendulum on top of the north pole.
Now imagine the ball bobbing back and forth while earth beneath it spins counter-clockwise.
From this perspective, the pendulum is fixed while earth rotates beneath it.
No mystery here, but let's observe from the surface of the planet next to the pendulum.
From this perspective, it's the pendulum that rotates while we perceive earth to be
stationary.
Furthermore, the pendulum will be rotating clockwise once every 24 hours.
This effect will reverse itself if the pendulum is on top of the south pole.
So from over the south pole, earth spins clockwise while the pendulum remains fixed.
But if you're standing on the surface, it's the pendulum that spins, specifically counter-clockwise.
But what happens when we move the pendulum away from the poles?
We know we need to keep the pendulum fixed, just as we did before at the poles.
But unlike when the pendulum was at the poles, it's now being flung around earth's axis.
So it's a bit unclear what "fixed" looks like in this context.
For this, we need the help of a visual aid.
First, draw a circle.
Alright, you can pause it.
So I want to reiterate what was just explained here for a second.
Essentially, Foucault was creating a pendulum which is just something going back and forth
on a consistent plane and while it's going on this plane, it's not going to necessarily
be affected by the rotation of the earth.
So there's nothing going to cause it because it's attached at the top.
It's not going to rotate while the rest of the earth would potentially rotate.
So at the North Pole specifically where you have the maximum rotational effect here, in
a 24-hour period of time, this pendulum will actually make a full rotation.
But the pendulum itself is not swinging or it's not rotating.
It's that the earth is rotating under it, so it gives the appearance that the pendulum
is actually rotating around, but it's actually us that are rotating.
Now if you do this experiment at the equator or near the equator, it actually doesn't rotate
at all.
There's no rotational effect whatsoever.
And then if you do it at the south pole, again, it's that 24 hour and then somewhere in between
it just takes longer.
It's maybe about 30 hours or so that you kind of experience this effect.
Well, they actually have Foucault's pendulums all over the world.
Go if you would to the end part of this video, I think timestamp around five minutes or five
minutes and five seconds.
Now he does, he explains all the math on this and he does a really good job, but then he
kind of explains here at the very end, kind of the conclusion, go ahead and play this
last 40 seconds.
Degrees.
The value of sine also gets closer to zero, and the time needed for one rotation becomes
infinitely long.
In other words, it doesn't turn at all.
There are countless Foucault pendulums all across the world, usually one in every science
museum and universities with a strong science department.
If Earth wasn't a spinning sphere, the relationship t equals 24 hours divided by sine theta would
not predict the rotation of these many pendulums if they even turned at all.
But as it turns out, every single pendulum around the world rotates exactly as Foucault
predicted they would if Earth were around rotating globe.
Alright, pause it.
And that's how we know.
So, here's the thing.
These pendulums are everywhere in the world, and they explain the math of exactly how they
can calculate how long it would take for that pendulum to make a full rotation.
And they have one even specifically in Antarctica, and it's 24 hours.
They have ones at the equator, which it's not rotating, and they have ones in other
places where it's taking anywhere from 32 hours or some other calculation proving this
mathematical formula, proving these pendulums are exactly what they're claiming, and this
is empirical evidence that the earth is rotating and that it is spinning.
It's empirical evidence.
He suggested there was zero empirical evidence.
Okay, what about Foucault's pendulum?
I mean, what do you say about this?
Yeah, I mean, so basically it just seems that these predictions as far as the Foucault's,
his pendulum predictions, there would be no way for them to be accurate whatsoever if
we were living on a flat, tarred planet or something like that, if we were living on
a flat planet or the earth wasn't spinning or anything like that.
So this is observable evidence that you can see with your very own eyes through these
pendulums.
Really interesting stuff.
Yeah, and of course, if you want to share your thoughts, we are taking callers.
It looks like we do have one caller.
I want to see if we can bring Frank on the line.
Do we have Frank with us?
Hey, pastor, hey brother Ben, how are you guys doing tonight?
Good, how are you?
What did you think of the debate the other night?
It was interesting in my comments on one of the Facebook pages, very poor moderator.
I don't want to get too offensive there, but he was not good in the least bit.
Owen Benjamin?
Yeah, no.
Please don't ever have him as a moderator again.
I think he did good.
I think it's a mixed bag for me, so obviously the start was a little rough and I wish things
had gone differently, but in general, he still allowed us both to have equal time and he
kept it lively to say the least.
I guess for me personally, once he said that comment about, "I'll make fun of your mother,"
and then he said, "Hey, my mother's dead," and he's like, "Well, the dead can't say it."
To me, he totally lost me.
He did apologize for that later in the stream though.
I did hear that, and that was good, but I just thought just that point, it really put
a bad taste in my mouth, because that's not something you should ever do to anybody, and
for me, I completely just lost all respect for him at that point, and I just thought
it was just a very, very uncomfortable low blow, and I would never want to have that
happen again.
My question was, and I might have another question if you have time, if you don't mind.
My first question that I said to the call screener was, I believe it was in the topic
of Isaiah 40, 22, and talking about like flat earth scriptures and stuff like that, and
I've noticed this with a lot of other like, say, heretical positions.
They say, "Well, you got to go back to the Greek, you got to go back to the Hebrew, or
go back to the originals." For you or for Brother Ben, why do they do that?
The King James is beautiful, it's perfect, it's inerrant. What is this about, you know,
saying to disprove you guys or disprove a King James Bible-believing person, say, "Hey,
you got to go back to the Greek, you got to go back to the Hebrew, see in the originals
it says this." I just want, could I get your thoughts on that?
Well, I would just say that, obviously, if the Bible meant something else, then it would
say something else. I believe we have a perfect translation in the King James Bible. I'm not
going to go so as far as to say that understanding the original Hebrew or Greek doesn't potentially
provide some value because I think it can. I think that comparing some verses in multiple
languages can sometimes reveal maybe our lack of understanding of what English word definition
is being used there. But I'm not going to go to a completely different English word.
So that's kind of, to me, like a complete misnomer. And I think that one of the arguments
he brought up, and we might get to this later in the stream, but he brought up the idea
of how, well, hug, which is the Hebrew underlying word for circle in Isaiah 40 verse 22, they
use that, which means circle, and they didn't use the word ball. But I'm thinking like,
well, duh, they didn't use the word ball because the word in English is circle. They didn't,
you know, it's like, okay, there's a different Hebrew word for the word ball. Sure. But they
didn't use ball. They used circle. So it's like we can use different English words. It
doesn't mean like, oh, well, if the earth was a globe, they would have used the word
ball instead of the word circle. But here's the thing, you know, ball doesn't fit there
in my opinion. And I showed in the Merriam-Webster 1828 dictionary that the word circle could
be referred to as an orb or the earth. You know, additionally, you know, the word circle
could just be also maybe giving us more detail as far as just the crust. And it's talking
about maybe the outer layer of the sphere, which is always a circle, no matter what perspective
you take. And so, you know, I think the reason the appeal to go to other languages is to
try and totally like pull the wool over people's eyes and change the entire text, like just
put a completely different translation or try to just change the words completely. Plus,
it's a guru thing. We don't speak Hebrew. Like 99% of people don't speak Hebrew. So
there's no way to verify anything this person's saying. So just like, trust me, I'm right
or I know more. And it's not a really, there's no way to almost verify that claim for 99%
of people. So I think it's just a trick to try and like, get away from what the text
actually says. I don't know if you have a thought here, Ben.
It's funny because you basically said what I was going to say. I think it enables you
to masquerade as a guru, first of all. Second of all, when you appeal to a language the
audience doesn't speak or understand, that also enables you to basically teach anything
you want because you can make any claim and this claim cannot be verified by the audience.
They don't know if what you're saying is true because they just have to take your word for
it given that they don't understand Hebrew or Greek.
Now I'll offer this caveat, I would say that, and you also mentioned this, I would say that
there is value in understanding Hebrew and Greek in this area when it comes to Bibliology
or if you want to defend the Textus Receptus reading that's disputed by critical text advocates
and people who want to attack the King James Bible.
If you want to defend the reading in the King James and the Old Testament, perhaps there
are people out there who may claim there's a contradiction or a bad translation somewhere
in the Bible.
If you know Hebrew and you can read the Masoretic Text, if you know Greek and you can read the
Received Text of Scripture, hey, there's value in that.
But the problem is bad people who don't even speak the languages appeal to those languages
to then make the Bible say whatever they want it to say.
Yeah, did you have a follow-up there, Frank?
Well, I had a second question, something different in terms of his flat earth argument and I'm
not a science guru by any stretch of imagination, but on a flat earth with the so-called dome
like we take like the Superdome from New Orleans and from what I gather, flat earth people
believe like the sun and moon are revolving around, I mean in different areas.
Well, with climate, I live in Maine, Ben, you've lived in Florida, our climate is different,
so how could the climate be different in Maine and Florida in the winter months if the sun
and the moon are spinning on opposite sides at the same time, how could there be different
climate?
And again, I'm no scientific guru, but how could a flat earther say the earth definitely
is flat and all this and that he was making some very like, he was using some intense
verbiage that I was understanding, but it was just like, how can our climates, whether
it's in Maine to Florida or Alaska to Hawaii or anywhere from north to south be so radically
different at different times if the moon and the sun are revolving around opposite at the
same time?
Yeah, he didn't provide a good explanation for that because he was asked that question.
He brought up tangential velocity, which totally has nothing to do with seasonality.
I'm going to actually address that here a little bit later.
It's a great question, but I'm going to defer because I'm going to get to that question
a little bit later and I want to make sure that we explain it then.
Thanks so much for calling in, Brother Frank.
Thank you.
Take care.
Have a good night.
Appreciate your time.
Thanks, Frank.
If you want to call in, you can call in 231-Baptist.
We'll be taking calls throughout the show.
If you want to give your thoughts on the show, I want to go to one other clip here because
going back to what we were bringing up, I'm bringing up the, I'm kind of going against
his claim of saying there's no empirical evidence.
Okay.
Well, here's the thing.
Even if I provided many of these individuals, flat earthers with empirical evidence, they
will flat out deny it, literally just deny it straight on the face.
I personally believe I took a flat earther in a space rocket into space and he looked
out the window and saw the sphere.
And of course people get mad about that, the oblate spheroid, okay, obviously it's not
a perfect sphere, I get it.
But if they saw the curvature of the earth, they would literally say it was CGI or a fake
window or like that I'm just making things up or they were on drugs, like they would
just deny it flat out.
And further evidence of this, there's a video, I want to play this video here in just a second,
but this is from a documentary, it's called Behind the Curve.
It's like a Netflix specific documentary.
It was someone interviewing a bunch of flat earthers and asking their opinion and their
evidences.
Well, this specific individual is going to demonstrate and talk about how they bought
a gyroscope.
They spent $20,000 on buying a gyroscope to prove that the earth was not moving.
And they literally proved that the earth was moving.
Let's go ahead and play this clip.
...to test the rotation to the earth.
If the earth is spinning at one rotation every 24 hours, that means that every hour it has
to turn 15 degrees.
And if the gyroscope is mounted anywhere on earth, it's going to drift.
In today's 21st century navigation systems, they're using what's called a ring laser gyroscope.
It's extremely precise.
If we could simply get one of these ring laser gyroscopes, we would be able to prove once
and for all that there is no rotation to the earth.
One of the people in the community actually purchased one for $20,000.
You start at point A, and then you do it some kind of process of collecting evidence of
thinking or whatever you want, and you end up at a conclusion, point B, that you believe
is true.
Okay?
Science is the era.
That's all science is, is the era.
Science is a process.
Get to conclusions.
But what we found is, is when we turned on that gyroscope, we found that we were picking
up a drift, a 15 degree per hour drift.
Obviously we were taken aback by that.
That's kind of a problem.
Right?
A little bit of a problem.
You start at the conclusion and you say you have to find evidence that shows that this
is true.
You're not looking for data to try to prove you wrong or refine your position.
You're trying to look for all the data that proves you right.
You'll cherry pick until you find evidence that appears to be an arrow, a logical arrow
to your dogma.
We obviously were not willing to accept that and so we started looking for ways to disprove
that it was actually registering the motion of the earth and that it in fact was registering
the motion of the sky.
So the next thing that we set out to do was to encase the Fiber-Optic Gyro in what's called
the Zero-Gauss Chamber to see if we could actually shield the energies being generated
by the heaven.
And we were unsuccessful with that unfortunately.
So the next thing that we're going to try is encasing the entire apparatus in bismuth.
If anything works well, I'd like to release it at the conference.
If there's not anything that you can say.
Are you compositing?
No, I guess I'm wrong.
So just to make it clear, this guy, somehow someone paid $20,000 in their community to
buy this gyroscope and the theory is if the earth is rotating at the rate that we assume
it would take 15 degrees of change to this gyroscope in one hour time period.
And then they did this test and they got exactly 15 degrees like expected.
And he's like, oh, we were taking it back.
And then he said, I'm not willing to accept it.
Did you, did you hear that?
I guess he said he was not willing to accept that is what stuck out the most to me.
And that is what these people are like.
They're just not willing to accept empirical evidence.
And then they'll make these claims.
There's zero empirical evidence that disproves our theory except for a Foucault's pendulum,
except for a gyroscope.
And you know who came up with the gyroscope, Foucault, Leon Foucault.
He also proved both of them.
So these flat earthers must really hate this French physicist.
And of course, you know, they really can't go on the Jew connection or the Jesuit connection
because he brought up, it was Jesuits that were somehow bringing us this globe theory.
Well, I would love to find out how Leon Foucault is a Jesuit priest, Jew, Freemason, knight
of the Templar.
He's Japanese.
I mean, it's just so funny that there's plenty of empirical evidence.
I'm just pointing to a few because I want to make it clear.
When they make this claim, there's no empirical evidence.
Here's multiple that I'm demonstrating.
In fact, here's flat earthers proving flat earthers wrong, and they still can't even
accept it.
I mean, what do you have to say about that?
When he made the statement, we were not, quote, not willing to accept that.
Tells you everything you need to know about the mentality, which is this.
They have a conclusion, and they are going to cling to that conclusion no matter what
reality says.
And it's a conclusion in search of evidence, not evidence that's leading them to a conclusion.
They're married emotionally for whatever reason to the dumbest cosmology I have ever heard
in my life, and no matter what you show them, if it conflicts with what they already believe,
we are not willing to accept that.
Wow.
Well, and I want to make it clear though, because while this is just reality denying
my numbing stuff, there's a lot of people who believe dumb things.
And I actually have this in my opening statement, but again, I was, I didn't want to get the
ad homo horn blown at me every five seconds.
So I kind of left it out.
But specifically, I wanted to bring up the idea that, look, a lot of people are atheists
and they believe nothing exploded and created everything, the big bang theory.
That's completely retarded.
Or there's people that believe that we descended from apes and chickens from dinosaurs.
That's ridiculous.
Joe Biden got 81 million votes.
That's ridiculous.
Building seven, Phil, due to office fires.
I mean, can you imagine showing someone building seven, falling in seven seconds flat and them
saying like, "Oh, that was due to office fires."
Like, you're just like, wow, that's just denying reality.
They admitted that they pulled the building.
Or people saying that the modern day Jews are God's chosen people.
I mean, that's just a form of reality denial that's mind numbing today when you show people
that supposedly are Christians that have a Bible and you can show them the New Testament
and then they just still believe the synagogue of Satan are God's chosen people.
Or two plus two equals four is racist.
Or men are women.
Or the COVID-19 shot prevents people from getting COVID.
Or how about just other religions, Hindus worshiping statues, Muslims following an illiterate
pedophile who married a six year old, Mormons wear special underwear, hope to have endless
spirit babies and visit the planet Kolob.
And then Catholics, they believe that they're literally eating the physical body of Jesus
and drinking his blood.
So I just want to put it in perspective, this is not the only dumb thing that people believe
and hold dogmatically against all reasoning, science, logic, truth, whatsoever.
I think what it kind of just illustrates is that when someone's unsaved, especially that
the devil can deceive them into believing some really idiotic things.
To me, it's almost like a punishment again, that God's punishing people for being gullible
and stupid and rejecting the gospel and rejecting the truth.
And because they're blind, they can fall victim to a lot of really dumb ideas.
Don't you kind of at least see how there's a lot of other dumb ideas that people subscribe
to beyond just the flat earth?
Yeah, there's tons of really stupid false religions out there, political ideologies
out there.
And part of it, I believe, is that an individual who does not have the Holy Spirit is not being
guided into all truth.
That's part of it.
But you're right, there's a lot of really stupid crap out there.
Well, and again, like the Bible says, "The fool hath said in his heart there is no God."
So when God uses a Bible verse to describe this, He's calling them names, He's calling
them fools, simple, brute beasts.
There's a lot of insulting language in the Bible, but it's not left as an insult.
It provides explanation as well.
And that's what I wanted to do in the stream.
I wasn't going to just sit here and just say, "Y'all are dumb, this is stupid, you're retarded."
I wanted to explain why that is so.
But I think that using insulting language is not just merely an ad hominem.
And in fact, most ad hominem attacks are really where you're assaulting the person's character,
not their argument.
So if I say, "Your argument's dumb because of this," that's not really an ad hominem
attack.
Ad hominem attacks are where you say, "This person's a Jew, therefore everything they
say is wrong."
That's an ad hominem attack, which they actually did against Einstein and a lot of other individuals.
They're just assaulting their character, who they are, as opposed to their ideas or their
viewpoints.
I want to go to the next section of this video, but before we do, I think we have another
caller from the promised land.
Where do you think that is?
I'm going to assume, since you said it, Texas.
Of course.
I believe we have Simeon from Texas.
Let's see if we can bring him on the line.
Hey, Simeon, how's it going?
Hey, how are you guys doing?
Doing great.
How are you?
Good.
Doing great.
We're doing a Stronghold Baptist Church camping trip.
How did that go?
Shout out to Pastor Berzins.
That was awesome.
Yeah.
I really disappointed I didn't go this year because it's always been a great trip.
Highly recommend Stronghold Baptist Church out in the Atlanta area with Pastor David
Berzins.
Check out his church.
Did you get to see some of the live stream or the debate already?
I did.
I've watched the whole thing.
I think it was after one of the services.
And so I was about five minutes late.
I came in with Owen just railing off and I was like, I didn't know either one of the
people.
So I was like, man, this guy's, I thought he was the guy you were debating.
I had no idea he was the moderator until halfway through his rant.
Well I could see how it maybe was confusing at first, but the show finally picked up.
What did you think about the actual debate itself?
It was something.
I did see your post on Instagram actually reposted that video you made or someone made
on your account on TikTok because and I even commented I said this video was worth that
debate.
Yeah.
Are you talking about the one?
I wonder if we can find it.
Maybe in a production group you can find it.
It's the video where he's saying there's no stars from space and we have the ISS just
literally showing all kinds of ... In fact, it's not just one video.
The video clip that we even put up was actually multiple videos and then I even found more
beyond that where we can see stars from satellites and from some of our space stations and things
like that.
It was just kind of funny.
I was trying to get him to make a really strong statement there because I knew I could
prove it wrong later, but it was kind of funny that he said that.
Do you have a question or anything you wanted to ask us?
Yes, sir.
Sorry for going off topic.
You're good.
The question I had, I have never looked this up so I'm not sure.
There might be just a simple answer to it but I was sitting here thinking while I was
listening and I was thinking about they have experiments below the equator or on the equator
line really where the water flows down drains clockwise above the equator and counterclockwise
below the equator and I was wondering if you knew how flat earthers explain that away.
Yeah.
I don't even know what their argument is because it's such a good point and it kind of appeals
to some other similar arguments that we brought up regarding the star trails or you can also
observe this with hurricanes.
Hurricanes actually go clockwise and counterclockwise above and below the equator and so I think
that they would just be a word salad explanation.
I don't think that they have a legitimate explanation for that one but that's a great
question.
We'll address that later in this video so we're going to get to that specifically and
I want to focus on the star trail part of that because it's such a great point and it
is an interesting phenomenon and this is something that can be tested like you can go to New
Zealand, Australia, anywhere and you'll see the water going down the drain in the opposite
direction as it would above the equator and so that's experiments people could do at home.
Let's go ahead and play, thanks for calling in Simeon, have a good night.
Let's go ahead and play our video some more.
I want to play it about the 29 minute mark where Whitson is providing his rebuttal to
my opening statement.
So we're just kind of focusing on his talking points.
Again, I brought up a few different arguments, specifically the star trail was like the stars
being upside down.
That was my first argument and then I brought up the sun rising in the east and setting
in the west and I brought up videos and he didn't address that but here was his response
to my opening statement.
Go ahead, three minutes.
Okay, yeah.
So on the scriptural thing, I mean you obviously brought up Isaiah 40-22 and that circle is
specifically a different word in Hebrew than he uses just before that which is a different
word for ball.
So he specifically doesn't call it ball and I actually have heard, seen a video of you
and I didn't look too much into it but you said, I hear a bunch of people say Hebrew
cosmology and you said, yeah, well the Jews are wrong about everything.
Well, you know, the Messiah was a Jew, I guess.
Alright, pause it for a second.
And I think he would have probably said, hey, you guys got the first.
Well, number one, okay.
They didn't use the word ball.
Do they have to use the word ball for it to be a sphere or to be an oblate spheroid?
I mean, specifically, like I had brought up, you can look at the Douay Rheims English translation,
which is coming from the Latin Vulgate.
It says the globe of the earth.
And if you look at the Spanish, the 1602 perfectata, it says el globo de la tierra.
And again, almost every other version at that time just says circle.
The Hebrew says circle.
But I think circle is the right word there.
I'm not trying to say that circle isn't the right.
But I think that some people just can't understand how the circle is not talking about a two
dimensional object, it's talking about a three dimensional object.
And he's going to bring up later the idea of a quarter.
But you know, them not using the word ball has no bearing on if this is bringing up a
sphere.
Additionally, when I brought up the idea of Jews being wrong about everything, that was
in the context of religious worshippers of Judaism, Talmudic Judaism.
Jesus Christ was not an observer of Talmudic Judaism.
Yeah, he was a descendant of the tribe of Judah, but the word Jew can have multiple
definitions.
And again, this is where Flat Earthers usually fail, is they don't account for alternative
definitions or explanations of words.
So they'll claim, oh, Jesus was a Jew.
Yeah, he was from the tribe of Judah, but he wasn't a practicer of Judaism.
Totally different group of people that we're talking about here.
Because if you really take my statement on service, I'm saying they're wrong about everything.
I would be saying that Jesus is wrong about everything.
I mean, how blasphemous would that be if I said such a thing?
I'm talking about Judaism is wrong about everything and that religion is a false religion.
Yes, it's clear you were referring in context to Judaism.
Yeah, but they don't care about context.
So go ahead and keep playing this clip.
Part of the book wrong.
So that's a wild argument to me, it obviously says it's immovable and fixed.
You have to claim that the scripture's creation description is not literal.
But I can prove that the scripture is literally correct outside of it, right?
And so I find that part very interesting.
Truth doesn't fear investigation.
And that's what makes it so fascinating.
And so we just can cover quickly the stuff you got wrong.
You said that they discovered that the speed of light was constant.
No, that's not correct.
He assumed that it was because it had to be along with time dilation and length contraction.
In fact, it's been proven not to be.
There's anisotropic signal propagation.
All right.
Positive again for a second.
We brought up satellites because I want to make sure that we're, you know, catching his
word salad.
Number one, he's claiming that we don't believe the Bible literally.
I think that's pretty fascinating.
I would love to test his, his theory on that to see how literal he believes the Bible.
He says later that he doesn't even appeal to any English translation as he uses the
scripture versions.
So does he take when it says that we shouldn't add or remove from God's word, does he take
that literally?
No, he does not take that.
Does he take every word of God as being necessary for our daily life, literally?
I would like to know, does he take Leviticus 2013 literally?
Let's see how literal he is.
But yeah, of course, Genesis 1's literal history, that was a false argument.
He says that the speed of light is not a constant, it's been proven false.
And then he brings up this idea of anisotropic signal propagation in satellites.
So of course, every person's heard of that, right?
Every person's very familiar with what he's bringing up.
But I was joking, okay, it's silly.
I have to look that up myself too.
But anisotropic is contrasted with the idea of something being isotropic or isotropic.
And specifically when we talk about isotropic, it's talking about something traveling through
a substance or a medium and that specific substance or medium has no change or alteration
to the velocity or acceleration of that particular property.
So it's basically just saying that it has no effect, that specific item is not going
to cause light or waves to go through it at a different speed, it's just going to go through
it no matter what the same type of speed.
Whereas anisotropic is saying based on the specific direction of this item, it could
actually alter the speed or the way that it travels through it.
So it's basically just saying like things traveling through metal or talking about water,
they're isotropic whereas anisotropic is talking about like specific pieces of wood or other
substances where depending on the direction or how it's entering that particular item,
it may alter how it travels.
So essentially what they're saying or what they're trying to bring up, ice is another
one that's anisotropic.
But basically that light could potentially slow down depending on what medium it's traveling
through.
And then somehow he's using that as a falsification of the speed of light being a constant.
But again, that's a false argument because the speed of light is considered a constant
in a vacuum, which is we're not bringing up the mediums that we're traveling through.
The vacuum is saying there is no medium and that the speed of light is consistent within
a vacuum.
And he's constantly referring to the Michelson-Morley experiment, which uses a "interferometer"
and this is like having light pass through two different pathways and they're assuming
that if the earth was moving, that that would potentially add to the speed of light.
Like whatever you say the speed of light is, which according to current science, it's
186,000 miles per second.
And so you would add plus whatever the rotation of the earth is or the speed of the earth
or to that particular number.
But according to modern scientific theory, the speed of light maxes out at 186,000 miles
per second.
And that no matter what, you know, no matter what, it's basically just going to get to
that point.
Now, of course, you could slow it down depending on what medium it's traveling through.
So it's traveling through some other, you know, substance, it could potentially slow
down and he's bringing this up.
But again, that does not prove that the earth is flat.
That doesn't prove that the earth is not spinning.
It doesn't prove that we're not orbiting the sun like literally nothing.
But he needs the speed of light to not be constant because then this experiment by Michelson
and Morley and his mind would somehow prove that the earth is not moving.
So let's ignore Foucault's pendulum, let's ignore the gyroscopic arguments, and the star
trails that we'll bring up here in a minute, and we're going to claim that anisotropic
signal propagation in satellites proves that the speed of light is not a constant.
That was his argument.
But again, it's not like people aren't aware of these things.
They brought up these experiments.
Why are they not saying the speed of light is now not a constant anymore and Einstein's
been disproven?
I mean, did you kind of understand what I just explained there a little bit?
Yeah, the speed of light is a constant in a vacuum.
That's what you meant when you made the statement and the argument that no, it's not because
in a specific substance, within a specific medium or substance, its speed would change
is not consistent with what you're referring to.
It's almost taking you out of context.
It's kind of like, oh, Jesus was a Jew.
What does that mean, though?
Well, it means he was of the tribe of Judah.
Speed of light is constant.
What do you mean by that?
Well, it's constant at a vacuum.
Well, and when Michelson and Morley were doing their experiment, they don't have like one
part of their experiment is in a vacuum and the other part's in this anisotropic state
or medium that it's passing through.
So therefore, you know, we could observe this variance.
It's like they're doing the exact same experiment, the exact same area with the exact same medium.
So it's not going to show that particular result that he's even bringing up.
So it's just, again, it's just using fancy language that doesn't explain the issue whatsoever
and just kind of hides behind the fact that there is no explanation.
But let's let's keep playing this clip.
I just wanted to pause on that point to explain this word salad and get into it.
But satellites in no way prove the Earth's a globe to actually use ellipses over a plane
with a change in velocity relative to the center of the coordinate system and real inertial
forces of a rotating universe, which are geocentric physics in their equations.
It actually is evidence for geocentrism of satellites are up above us.
You said that Michelson-Morley just failed to detect the ether.
That's just patently incorrect.
It was the relative motion of the earth in the ether.
What they were trying to detect was literally the motion of the earth at 30 kilometers per
second through an ether.
They didn't.
They threw the ether out.
They then said that time slowed down, that the measuring apparatus contracted to deceive
them into thinking that the earth was stationary.
You say we just say that we see too far.
Well, yeah, there's physical limits to living on a sphere, and it doesn't conform to what
we see.
And we've seen hundreds of miles where there should be literally three, four, five vertical
miles blocking what we see.
And so you're going to have to verify the claim that it's all an illusion.
I'll just reiterate the point again.
You have the burden of fruit to substantiate these claims.
You basically just use a baseless assertion fallacy over and over, and then you kind of
appeal to consensus, and then you use a bunch of stereotype fallacies and poisoning the
well fallacies, and then reification fallacies, and affirming the consequent fallacies.
And none of that is obviously going to cut it logically, so we'll have to get more into
actual evidence.
All right.
You can pause it.
That was a lot of fallacies.
That was like the funniest part for me of the whole show, is when he goes on this rant
about all of these fallacies.
But he made the claim that we can see hundreds of miles, folks.
Hundreds of miles.
That would be like a scene from here in Dallas, Fort Worth area, into Houston.
I can see pure words from here.
Yeah.
We can see, like I've been in the reunion tower and in the reunion tower, you can see,
like you're really high up.
And in fact, Dallas, Fort Worth area is about 750 feet above sea level.
Whereas Houston's, you know, I think it's only like 50 or 100.
Don't quote me, but it's much closer to the sea level, obviously.
So it's way further down.
So if I'm in reunion tower, which there would be nothing obstructing my view, how could
I not just see straight to Houston?
I mean, where's these hundreds of miles that he's claiming that we can potentially see?
Plus, show us that experiment.
Let's say like, hey, if you stand at this point and you look in this direction, you
can see hundreds of miles, hundreds, literally.
Here's a video that I took or found of reunion tower.
And this is another point that I wanted to bring up, but they always talk about how
it looks flat and feels flat.
And so, you know, they have, we have the burden of proof, but here's the thing.
If you go into reunion tower, it's actually a restaurant that spends.
So while you're in the restaurant eating, you're actually spending, you're getting
to see different parts of the city skyline.
It's really cool.
You should check it out.
It's an expensive steakhouse, but it's kind of a cool.
It's a cool experience.
But here's the thing, while you're in the restaurant, you don't feel like you're spinning.
Sure.
Okay.
So that, but you still are though.
You just can't feel it.
Yeah.
Oh, I guess when you go to this restaurant, there's a secret restaurant, Ben, when you
go to it, all of Dallas Fort Worth will spin around you while you eat your meal.
That's what's actually happening.
And that's what's, and in fact, if anybody tries to tell you otherwise, you know, they're
just a NASA simp.
You know, they're just basically just, they're going along with a federal, yeah.
You are a Zionist.
I'm a Zionist.
I don't think that anybody's claiming I'm a Zionist, but go to 30, the 39 minute mark.
I am.
So, so far, I mean, Witsett's been really compelling, right?
I mean, just all of these great brews.
Well, hey, he knows his big words.
Anisotropic.
He knows his logical fallacies, folks.
Oh, yeah.
Because he hasn't made any baseless assertions.
I mean, you could Google logical fallacies for 30 seconds and memorize them and then
mindlessly rattle them off and claim that your opponent is guilty of them all day long.
It doesn't win you an argument and it certainly doesn't prove that your opponent is saying
something that isn't true.
Well, I think this is what's funny.
He accuses me of making a baseless assertion.
Okay, we've seen hundreds of miles.
Was that not a baseless assertion?
Where's the evidence?
There's no proof of that.
That's a good point.
I mean, that sounds like a baseless assertion to me.
Okay.
Well, now again, we're just kind of skipping around a little bit, and I'm going to his
specific point.
I brought up Isaiah 40 verse 22 again, and then this is his response at around the 39
minute mark.
Let's go ahead and play that.
Can something be a circle and not a sphere?
In a two-dimensional world, of course, a circle is not a sphere.
Do we have quarters in the real three-dimensional world?
That's not a sphere, and it's not a circle.
It's not a circle.
Okay.
So there's a difference.
All right.
Go ahead and stop it.
Okay.
Trade selector in the chat says that the tower doesn't spin anymore, just FYI.
They don't spin?
I want to fact-check that.
Okay.
We need to fact-check that.
It doesn't spin anymore.
We need to call them and tell them that they need to start spinning that thing up again.
Get that thing spinning again so we can disprove some things.
So I know that they changed.
Like, it used to have an older restaurant, and now it's like a new restaurant.
So we need to call them up and say, "Spin."
I just wanted to get that in there before we moved on.
Well, I've been in it when it spun before in the past, but that's sad if you can't
do it anymore.
I guess you'd have to just believe me.
But here, you know, whatever.
But just how about a cylinder?
Have you ever heard of a cylinder, Ben?
I'm familiar with this concept.
Is a cylinder a circle?
It's a cylinder.
It's circular, you could argue.
The top is a circle if you look at it from just the top viewpoint.
But again, it's not accurate to call it a circle, it's a cylinder.
Because we live in a three dimensional world.
This, if you look at the surface, it doesn't matter what perspective, it's always a circle.
That's why when the Bible says circle the earth, that's perfectly accurate.
Because it looks like a circle when you look at it from any angle, from any perspective,
just the face of the earth does look like a circle.
Now does a quarter always look like a circle?
Not if you looked at the edge.
Not if you look at any perspective other than a top down view.
Top down view, exactly.
There's usually only one perspective where it looks like a circle.
But here it always does.
Exactly.
Right?
One plus one is two.
Easy stuff.
It's silly because here's the thing.
At what perspective is that not a circle?
No perspective.
It's always true.
It doesn't matter what perspective you look at.
Whereas from their perspective, if it's a flat disc, it's not a circle from almost
every perspective.
Bingo.
So it's just ridiculous.
It's always a circle if it's a sphere no matter what angle or perspective you look at it.
Whereas with the flat earth, if I'm looking at it on the edge or something like that,
it no longer looks like a circle.
Alright, so let's go to the 40 minute mark, 40, 55 second mark, and I want to play another
thing that he brought up here.
And we're just kind of walking through, we're just, you know, quarters folks.
That's what the Bible said, you know, he said it upon the quarter of the earth.
The quarter.
Yeah.
Go ahead and play the clip when you get it.
They're a Tostanese who apparently calculated the size of the earth on the orb.
Okay.
So those are the points that need to be addressed and you have two minutes.
Yeah.
So the Southern Star Trails for one, obviously the direction is not a problem at all.
It's just merely perspective.
If you look south, it'll look like they're going the other way.
They're all just rotating one way.
Every star in the sky goes east to west, right?
So clockwise, counterclockwise.
All right.
Positive.
Perceptive directions.
We have to stop here for a second.
He's saying that the star trails change their perspective just based on you just changing
your direction.
So I want to pause on this point because this is a really important point and it was actually
brought up even later in the show and he said a bunch of nonsense on that as well.
But I want to pull up some of the graphics that we have.
Let me see if I can find, yeah, that's the graphic that I want.
So here's the thing.
This is Star Trails R and you've got this globe here.
So if you're on the top of the globe at the North Pole and you're looking up, you will
see the stars going counterclockwise as the Earth rotates.
So if you take a photograph where it's basically like a long lapse time, you'll slowly see
the stars moving in a pattern and it makes a circular pattern that's counterclockwise,
which is shown there.
If you're at the equator, the stars are going in a straight line.
And then if you look at the southern, if you look at the south pole or the southern hemisphere,
you'll notice that they're going clockwise.
This is literally impossible on their flat earth map.
It just proves them wrong instantly.
And I wanted to help people kind of understand this point and it might seem silly, but I
think it just kind of helps you recognize what we're doing.
But if you just take your finger, and I know this is probably difficult for flat earthers,
but if you take a finger and you go above your head and you just slowly spin, help me
with Ben, okay?
Just slowly spin clockwise, okay?
And just look up.
You can see it's going clockwise, right?
You can see your finger going clockwise, right?
Now see if you can just bring your hand down, but keep the same rotation.
Just keep rotating, and go to where it's underneath, and now you can look at it.
Is it still going clockwise?
Or is it going counter?
No, going counter now.
It's going counterclockwise.
Counterclockwise.
Now just keep the same motion.
If you just keep the same motion, but then you go up, then you'll notice something.
Clockwise again.
It's clockwise again.
Why?
Because that is how perspective actually works.
That if you're standing on the south pole, specifically looking up, you'll see it going
clockwise.
Whereas, if you're standing on the north pole, it'll actually be going counterclockwise.
And I would love for Austin to demonstrate for us.
I would love for him to put a clock on the ceiling and use a camera and show us how he
can stand in two different positions in the room, and the clock magically starts going
backwards.
Because that's what he literally claimed.
He literally just claimed that the southern star trail is going in a different direction
counter-clockwise.
It's just merely perspective.
So he's claiming you can somehow observe something going clockwise, and if you just, well, if
you just stand over here, now all of a sudden it's magically not going clockwise.
The stars in the sky will change directions if you change positions.
Yes.
That's what he claimed, literally, which defies perspective, reality, and just everything.
He says, "Oh, the stars are going from east to west."
Okay.
He'll claim we're straw manning him.
Everything's a straw man.
What did you think about my simple hand illustration?
Did you follow it?
It's easy enough that anybody could do it at home, whatever they want to.
Try it at home right now if you don't believe us.
Again, this goes to the point that some of our callers brought up earlier of the same
thing.
If you're on the northern hemisphere, the water will drain in a specific direction orientation,
and then when you're on the southern hemisphere, it actually drains in the opposite direction.
The exact same phenomenon that I just explained to you.
So it's going down clockwise and then counterclockwise.
So are hurricanes.
Hurricanes are spinning in a specific orientation, and then they spin the opposite orientation
below the equator again.
And of course, at the equator, it's a straight line, because that's you doing your finger
like this.
You didn't notice it going clockwise or counterclockwise, did you?
Because your perspective is just going in a straight line.
That's what you see here at the equator, where you have the straight lines of that particular
... Yeah, this is even better illustration that kind of shows you how when you stand
on the globe, on the circle of the earth, that you actually see these different patterns
of the star trails.
It's just a problem that flat earthers can't explain.
But then he just says, "Oh, it's just perspective."
Perspective Ben.
Just, yeah.
I mean.
Perspective.
What else is there to say?
Flat earthers will just ignore this specific point completely.
They just don't like this point because, frankly, it just demolishes them.
It does.
It looks like we got another caller here.
Again, you can call in 231-BABDIS.
We're taking some calls.
We've got somebody from Upstate.
Robert is on the line.
Hey, Robert.
How's it going?
Hey, how's it going?
Good.
How are you?
Good.
So what'd you think of the show?
I thought it was great.
It was fun with all the interruptions, but other than that, I think Pastor Shelley did
a good job.
Thank you.
So they didn't convince you that the Earth's flat or what?
I think the flat Earth is probably one of the stupidest theories there is, but I just
find it interesting that you can literally see other planets from a telescope without
the help of NASA, and they're all spheres.
So it just flies in the face of the stupidity that every other planet's a sphere, except
according to them, Earth.
Yeah, again, they say, "Well, that doesn't prove the Earth is a sphere," but it's kind
of strange.
Yeah, it'd be kind of strange if every other heavenly body was a sphere, you know, with
the exception of Earth, right?
Right, exactly.
Did you have any questions or anything you wanted us to cover?
Not really.
That was like the only thing I kind of just popped into my head during the show, but yeah,
no.
I actually go to Bible Believers Baptist Church in Yakima, Pastor Thompson is the pastor there.
Oh yeah, great.
Shout out to Pastor Thompson.
Yeah, for sure.
But I'm watching the show live right now.
Well thanks so much for tuning in and giving us your thoughts.
Of course, if any of you just want to share your thoughts, it's more than welcome on the
show.
Thanks again, Robert, for calling in and watching the show.
Hey, I'd like them to be consistent.
Here's the flat sun theory, flat moon, flat Mars, flat Neptune.
All of it.
Let's see it.
I guess they don't even believe space exists though.
Yeah.
I don't know exactly what their view is on that.
Some of them don't at least, right?
Yeah.
I don't know.
That's a safe statement to make.
I know every word that we say is a straw man and whatever fallacy.
Anyway, go ahead.
Let's go ahead and play a little bit more.
I want to go to another section.
Let's jump to 43 minutes and 30 seconds.
This is where Owen was asking specifically Austin about how there's longer days, there's
summer, just the seasonality aspect and the South Pole, which great questions.
I was going to bring him up if he didn't, but let's go ahead and play Austin's response
here.
Southern Hemisphere in the winter and the very short days in our summer.
Yeah, so it's the same way that the globe explains how the earth spins faster at the
equator than at a northern or southern latitude.
So you have tangential velocity and angular velocity, meaning it can continue to go to
some angular velocity, but go faster.
Okay.
So the question's about how we have longer days in the summer and shorter days in the
winter.
And he just brought up tangential velocity, which again, I don't expect anybody to know
what that means.
I myself wanted to verify what that meant before I talked about it.
That tangential velocity is essentially the idea that if something is rotating or spinning,
especially a circle, that when you're closer to the edge, you're going to have more force
on you to be thrown off in a specific tangent, in a specific line.
So really what you can do is you can experience this from a merry-go-round.
If you're on a merry-go-round, if you're in the center of the merry-go-round, there's
less force causing you to spin off or to be shot off of that particular merry-go-round.
Whereas if you're on the edge, you're going to feel that force the strongest as far as
that force trying to shoot you off of that particular merry-go-round.
You've got a merry-go-round, right?
Do they have that on the Middle East?
I don't know.
It's probably just sandcastles, right?
I've been on it many times and yes, I know what you're talking about.
You feel like you're going to get flung off when you're on it.
But isn't it true that when you get closer to the edge or as you're closer to the edge,
you feel that force is a little bit stronger?
A little bit more pronounced, yes.
That's tangential velocity.
That's what we're bringing up.
How in the world does that explain longer summer days?
It allows you to sound smart and make dumb people think that you're winning the debate
because you used big words that don't apply to the actual question.
Okay.
Let me ask another question.
If the earth is not spinning, what tangential velocity is even talking about?
Why would you bother bringing that up when you don't believe that it's first of all
that it's a sphere and second of all that it's spinning?
Okay.
I am losing brain cells right now and I'm not even in the debate.
I wasn't in it.
So it's hard to know what he was trying to bring up.
Let's help him make his argument.
Maybe he's bringing up the sun, like, you know, if we had a flat earth and he's talking
about the way that the sun's traveling around this flat disk or whatever, that maybe it's
experiencing tangential velocity.
Even if that's true, let's just claim that that was true.
What's causing the ebb and flow of that tangential velocity then?
Because as you get closer to the edge, you have more force causing you to spin off.
So what would cause it to come back?
Again, this isn't explaining anything.
It's just using words, talking about scientific facts that are just unrelated.
They're just unrelated facts that don't explain anything whatsoever.
Go ahead and just keep playing so he can continue word salad.
So in the south, it would have to be speeding up like in tangential speed, tangential velocity,
but it could just maintain the same angular speed.
Give you a longer day because the sun is going to be over a portion of it longer.
And then as to in this, this ties in.
The end of that answer also ties into the next question you asked,
which is like, say, the 24 hour sun.
Well, we don't actually see the 24 hour sun itself, right?
They doctor footage.
So but we see the daylight and the daylight is has been replicated also with a dome.
If you have a dome, like the scriptures blatantly say with the firmament,
it will actually reflect around in something called a coffee cup caustic.
And it reflects around the entire brim of a dome.
So the 24 hour sunlight is not a problem for the plain earth.
The 24 hour sun would be.
And they passed around this footage of supposedly 24 hour sun for two years.
And we found out that they faked it.
They came out and admitted that it was fake.
So both of those questions.
All right, go ahead and stop it.
He's actually asked this later and he says that he faked it in another place.
In this document, I have two YouTube videos.
It's actually near the one hour and one minute section
because he brought this up again.
But I want to just go to it now.
He's claiming that the footage of a 24 hour son in Antarctica is fake.
I was going to ask you to respond to that claim and you're doing it now so perfect.
And again, he said this.
They admitted that they faked it.
Another baseless assertion.
I would love for him to show the evidence that they admitted that they faked it.
Now, I think that potentially what he's referring to is this,
that when they had filmed this loop, it had nothing to do with proving the earth was a sphere.
It was actually just a guy that's in Antarctica,
just doing a documentary talking about Antarctica.
But he just decided to show everybody the 24-hour sun because he just thought it was cool.
So he literally has a 360 camera view where it goes and rotates with the sun
and you see the sun loop all the way around.
I think they claimed that at the end of this video, like at the very end,
instead of just having it kind of stop, they took the beginning like few seconds
and they looped it. So it makes like, oh, like a little bit more than a 360 view.
Do you understand what I'm saying? Basically, I think so.
But like, even if that was true, that what about the 360, you know, 360 view before that?
Like, oh, they fake the last little bit of this.
Okay. What about the whole rest of it? Yeah.
Like, because it couldn't even go, it couldn't even go to 15, 16 hours.
But you're mad that after the 24-hour mark, they might have taken the beginning and
attached it on just to kind of show a little bit more of a loop.
Even if that were true, it still debunks the Flat Earth model because of everything that
occurred before that supposed edit. Now, here's another, go ahead and start
playing the video. We don't need the audio because there is no audio. You can just play it.
So here's the video. And this is the guy, again, this is a documentary this guy made
talking about Antarctica and just experiencing like different things in Antarctica. Well, not
to mention we have a friend and a church member who lived in Alaska for a while and could talk
about some of this. Yeah, again, Alaska also experiences some longer daylight seasons during
their summer period. Because again, if you're tilted like this, whenever they're on, you know,
one particular portion of the orbit of the sun, they're going to get 24 hour daylight. Yep. And
we see the phenomenon on video now. Yeah, we're, this is the video that they quote faked,
that they admitted that they quote faked it. I would love to see the evidence of this guy coming
out and saying, yeah, I just completely, I know I made a whole document about Antarctica, but I
just decided to just fake this randomly. Well, maybe because it's a time lapse, it's faked that
way. He should have just left it for, made like a year long video or something. A year long video?
Yeah. There's only four months of sunlight that it's like this, where it's like a 24 hour period.
But I think, okay, so we're basically approaching somewhere here, they're claiming that they looped
the beginning again, like over top of this. Like that was like, oh, that was like a, they looped
that little bit. Just that last few seconds or something, they looped it. So the whole video is
fake now. Here's another video, and this one's interesting. Notice the shadow. The only way to
tell, can you see the shadow on the bench? Yes. See how it's slowly turning? When you watch this
video, you'll notice it go all the way around and then come back to basically that starting
position. You can now see, you couldn't see the shadow on this weird statue thing or whatever,
this weird monument. Pagan monument. Someone's going to be like, oh, now you're appealing to
false religion or something. But essentially here you have another 24 hour loop video.
And again, I'm using loop loosely here. And one more time, how long does the sun stay in the sky?
Like how long is their daylight? Four straight months. Okay. Just want to make sure we hammer
that in. Again, if you're like really, really close to the south pole or the north pole,
obviously when you're not, that made a perfect loop. There's some graphics that we have.
Four straight months of sunlight. And I want to help explain, that's what the video claimed,
and you know, makes sense. Go if you would to graphic 31. I think that it'll help explain.
We just need a video that lasts four months. Yeah, that's exactly it. Okay. So notice,
do you see here on the left side, on your side, how the north pole is getting all daylight?
So it doesn't matter how much, this would be kind of the view again. It's just spinning,
it's getting daylight all day. And then notice in the winter season, which is December,
but it's their summer, this is when it's on the other side of the sun,
notice how the south pole is getting daylight 24 hours. And this is what is observed. And Austin
Whitsitt even admitted multiple times in this debate that if you were in the south pole,
if you were in Antarctica and you saw a 24-hour sun, it would immediately debunk his claims.
So then he has to say that every video is fake. That was two videos. There's... Can we just get
him there somehow? Why doesn't he see it himself then? Well, again, this is where we go back to
the guy that had the gyroscope. I guess so. He would say like... The sky itself is the sign-off.
No, they probably like put him in like... Have you seen The Truman Show?
No, but you preached against it, so I understand the concept. It's like this fake... It's this fake
environment that they bring him into and it's not a real world. They would like say that they took
him to a special indoor pod that wasn't even really outdoors and tricked him into thinking that it was
the South Pole and when he observed the sunlight it wasn't even the sun it was just like this inside
pod and he's like on the Truman show and like it's all fake. Like you couldn't prove these people
that the Earth is a sphere no matter what. I'm convinced. Like it just it's a dogma that they
can't get away from. I challenge him fly your rear end down to or up to one of the poles
and see it. To the South Pole. Go to the South Pole. Yeah. See it for yourself. Exactly. All right let's go ahead
and play the 59 minute of the video because he's going to bring up the Antarctica stuff again. I
just want to I just want to hear it. We see the phenomenon in either the North or the South depending
on the time of year. Yeah see if we can play the 59 minute mark of the debate and we'll hear him
bring up what he thinks about this Antarctica stuff that we brought up. Let's get the response.
And again like in New Zealand or some of these other countries you can still see these long
daylight cycles. So are all the videos from New Zealand fake too? New Zealand itself is fake.
Yeah go ahead and play go ahead and play whenever you get it. Circled Antarctica they took a voyage
from the southern tip of South Africa and they circled the entire Antarctica and then sailed
down into... Did they circle it or did they orbit? Did they orbit? I'm just kidding go ahead. They
circled it and so uh specifically there's pictures video there's all the different information about
that specific event so again all all their side's gonna say is that this is just fake
everything's fake everybody's an actor all of it cgi all but it's just like there's so many people
that are physically disproving their claims there's a guy who doesn't have anything to do
with this debate see if we can pull up now link 45 or graphic 46 i also brought up when it comes
to this antarctica aspect is this specific um sailing adventure there's a specific group that
took a yacht and they literally circled and again obviously that's not even a circle okay
they did a roundabout of antarctica but how do you do this if it's a freaking ice wall you can't
exactly i mean you're done already and then he's just saying he's it's done basically he said no no
no these people were like confused and they actually went around the flat map and so even
though you would know that antarctica was inside of you like inside your ship the whole time they
were tricked and is actually on the outside of them and they just went around this ice wall the
whole time and you know it's just like everybody's a liar right show the picture uh graphic 47 of the
people of all these people that were on this specific um journey they're all liars been
every single one of nasha shills they're probably cgi ai people it's all fake um we even have the
video of it they circumnavigated go to video 48 well that that would be the right term correct
they circumnavigated uh the south pole and it's a tropic perspective of tangential velocity
they're using the tangential flux capacitor the accelerated of the factor of perspective
parallax so here's a here's like a video that's even about their specific journey and can't
remember it's pretty it's pretty soon in the video they're gonna have um yeah here we go
this is them explaining their journey look they left south africa and they went around it wow what
a concept they went around it which is a dangerous journey as you could see yes and then they landed
here in australia specifically in perth so here's a group that sailed like are they all actors is it
fake were they confused like is everybody in on the conspiracy theory so think about this though
i know i brought this up to you in private okay let's pretend the earth's flat for a second right
they are confused right now thinking they're going around the south pole when they're not
they're going around antarctica but they're not actually doing that they're confused and
they're going around this they're circumnavigating the entire planet somehow yeah the entire planet
okay and there's a wall ice wall this ice wall right here right so this is where the the sailors
are here they were confused that they were on the wrong side of it the whole time they're over here
they're going around the entire planet without knowing it and then here's your wall and beyond
the wall outer space you can dig into the wall and end up in outer they say there's secret land
they say there's secret land like there's no that's where the garden of eden is and atlantis and um
the nephilim and you know all these i think hitler still lives over there or something so
you got to get the right the right viewpoint here go if you went back to the debate and go to an hour
and two minutes and 40 seconds so i want to go to another baseless assertion again this guy says that
i made baseless assertion let's hear his baseless assertions he's going to tell you that there are
russian astronauts that have now come out and said they were lying and said that the earth's flat
and everything like that go ahead and go ahead and play it as soon as you have it an hour and two
minutes 40 seconds to be unbiased that's a it's a valid thing uh how are they faking this how
are they deceiving how would how would so many people be in on it yeah so most people believe
the earth's a globe almost no one's in on it like yeah if if there wasn't a really large amount of
people lying it would wouldn't be feasible it would remain a lie right someone would spill the
beans or whatever i think you got to fast forward to the minute never been to space no one's going
to space of lying anywhere flat literal former soviet astronauts but um oh there we go the
government you can pause it right they have they have there's literal russian astronauts that say
that it's flat and they faked it names quotes wouldn't you wouldn't you just say like boris
so-and-so is this astronaut and he's already come out proven that it's flat yeah vladimir
volchenkov yeah quote gruchov it's probably like like you you probably know a lot of these names
like all the famous hockey players right what is it you don't see you got gorgashov and ilia
kovalechuk he's actually a retired hockey player go ahead exactly i mean wouldn't you just name
the person like we're saying like uh eritophanes or you know we're bringing up specific people like
leon fucco or we're bringing up all these people that did all these specific experiments i mean
if they say hey name someone that observed the earth was right how about neil armstrong buzz
aldrin michael collins on the apollo 11 mission how about all the people on the apollo 8 mission
how about all the people on the apollo 13 mission you know how about dude perfect koby cotton i
literally named him he says that the earth is not flat at the end of his specific video let's play
that i love this video let's see if we can pull up while we're talking here the dude perfect one
and i know people are like oh man he appealed to dude perfect but but here's the thing dude perfect
is a bunch of christians if you know like behind the scenes they're all like evangelical christians
and they always try to make these claim that like somehow people who believe the earth is a sphere
all like atheists or god-hating reprobates or something like that that's just simply not true
there's plenty of christians in fact the vast majority of christians believe that here's kobe
cotton one of the guys from dude perfect he got an opportunity to fly in this space program and
it's it's an independent private space program where you pay a bunch of money and they'll send
you off into space and in fact their rocket which is cool it relands so they can reuse that like
thrust booster for multiple of these missions and in fact that top capsule they even have that land
softly enough that i think they get to reuse that as well so um it just independent private companies
wanting to do space exploration obviously make money on people that are rich taking them to space
giving them this experience but i think we can fast forward he's going yeah you might have skipped
out there oh yeah here it is here here's where the the capsule detached from the rocket and now
they're experiencing what's known as zero gravity and so they're basically just floating and again
you can't fake this kind of footage i mean look at the hair of these women it's just you can tell
their hair is just completely like in disarray like that's not a normal experience they're in
look at he's just like upside down they're getting experience zero gravity for a short period of time
and then they're going to take the camera at some point they're actually going to bring it up to the
window here so we can see like there you go and of course they say like oh as he's bringing it up
it kind of it kind of flattens out a little bit because this is a fish island or something
it's like look you can't fake this folks oh ping pong balls are now floating upwards so here's them
descending go to the end of the video um i think i have a time stamp and i want to go to the end
of video and we're actually going to play a little bit of the audio here but uh you know his wife
actually is like crying it's kind of a quick second that you can kind of see that she is teared up
or whatever right there he's just like right there i mean you can tell like she was emotional
because she was afraid her husband literally died people have died in these explorations
so you can tell like concerned to have she was so it's just just this perfect circle super
bright layer perfect circle all the way around the earth biggest of all time shout out can't say that
truly the experience of a lifetime from the bottom of my heart thank you very very much for real
holy cow so that's like the owner it's a pleasure to meet you sir pleasure lifelong fan is the earth
flat not flat i can confirm it's round he's an astronaut see oh this guy's lying all right so
again he said oh russian astronauts came out and said it's fake i'm saying kobe cotton is an
astronaut because the definition of an astronaut is someone that went into space anybody that goes
into space is considered an astronaut here's kobe cotton saying it's not flat he they literally had
the video evidence of their journey i mean i'm just like what kind of empirical evidence did
they have oh this is an appeal to authority right mine's an appeal to authority but them just saying
making a statement russian astronauts say that it's flat i even tried to look this up i tried
to do searching like if there was a russian astronaut and i couldn't find anything maybe
there is maybe there was one but but i'm like it seems like a baseless assertion when you can't
even verify oh russian astronauts say that it's flat folks i mean good night pastor thompson said
in the chat room show the put on the screen while we're talking go to the go to the red bull jump
because that's a pretty cool one too um some guy did like the highest freefall jump ever look at
this guy look at this fake yeah it's all cgi it's all fish islands or whatever you know maybe you're
fake flight arthur how about that so again we don't have to necessarily watch the little video
27 000 feet but again oh fake again cgi fish islands or whatever you know it's just like
they just have to try and make excuses for all this stuff and it's like what about all these people
in the room they're just all like in on this scam like they're all just faking it or something or
like they don't even believe this stuff i mean you know it's just crazy and in fact while he's even
traveling down you can kind of see the curvature occasionally but he he has a couple problems
because he's actually spinning and there's a problem that if he's spinning too much he could
lose control and he could die so he has to like figure out a way to balance himself while he's in
this freefall state to then you know release his parachute and not die and stuff like that so again
he's just spinning but it's like no matter what perspective it's just a circle look at that i mean
it's like a it was like a full rotation almost that you could see this guy spinning and see the
earth is consistent with isaiah chapter number 40 verse 22 oh it's a flat disc well he would
have to be falling at the dead center for it to look like that yes which again it's like it doesn't
matter what perspective what shape this guy looks like a circle no matter which perspective you view
it in exactly consistent with the scriptures there's another um thing that i wanted to bring
up uh when we were talking about some of these videos i can't remember which one now that i'm
thinking off the top of my head i mean these these are all fake videos right ben it's all fake
nothing's real everybody's cgi australia doesn't exist you know we're living in a simulation
i don't know what else you want me to tell you at this point i really just don't know what else
you want me to tell you again if their view is is true and just to go back to the bible very
quickly we'll do a bible commercial break here because it calls it the circle of the earth the
bible also says in matthew chapter 12 and verse 40 for as jonah's was three days and three nights
in the whale's belly so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the
earth so let's pretend for a minute that we're all stupid and we think the earth's flat oh it's a
cone now so it's like a ice cream cone you have the flat top and because the bible says jesus
went to the heart of the earth that's clear scripture so jesus is in this cone section
right but now you have a perspective of the earth that is not a circle now it is a cone if you
look at it in a specific way you say you sound condescending i don't care what i think i sound
like i don't care okay go cry about it yeah here's the thing flatter those who say like oh if you
just do some research or whatever it's like okay how about watch our entire video and prove every
single thing that i'm saying wrong but but they can't now i want to go back to the debate again
and and bring up a few more points because we're not done folks we're still not done go and let's
go to an hour and 17 minutes here's the here's one of the funniest pictures that i could show
right i could literally show tons of pictures of people with the spherical earth in bibles
from the 13 14 15 16 17 18th century so are all of those people like i said people not believe in
the spherical earth you're straw manning what i said i didn't say i didn't believe in a spherical
earth okay what i said was that the scriptures specifically say that it's not a spinning
spherical earth and that the people you're saying you believe the earth is a sphere
what's up you believe the earth is a sphere what no all right positive why would i why he said
he said i was straw manning his position by saying that he doesn't believe the earth is a sphere
that's literally the entire reason you're debating is because you you hold to a flat earth view
that is not a straw man like this is again him just making word salads and not knowing what he's
saying how can he say that i'm straw manning his position by saying he doesn't believe the
earth is a sphere but then of course the moderator brought the discussion and took it away um it's
just kind of crazy and then i feel like i smashed them in the next minute on you know this point
specifically of just like how many people would be in on it but then uh the moderator owen benjamin
brings up the idea of like climate change go to an hour 19 minutes and 40 seconds his point is it
well all these people are in on a climate change scam so therefore they can all be in on the flat
earth or i'm sorry on the globe yeah but notice something that he brings up in this go see if
you can play the one hour 19 minutes and 40 seconds here revisions on a flat earth so i don't
even know why they but yeah that's that's just what like the mainstream story is and didn't you
believe that the sun was one million miles away not 93 million something like that or yeah it's
a super far away i didn't even really make it specifically pastor shelly do you believe in
mainstream space like trillions of stars light years away uh nuclear explosions do you believe
in like the mainstream space or a different type of space do you believe that nuke in nuclear
explosions what what does that even have to do number one with the argument they're having but
who doesn't believe in nuclear explosions like that's bizarre like what about hiroshima do we
just not even believe that the united states dropped an atomic bomb on the japanese which
both parties readily admit that that happened like we're just what like what does that even mean
like i didn't realize that people didn't think that nukes exist but like i made fun of it in
the sermon the other day because i just thought it was like one of the most retarded things i've
ever heard yes i believe in nuclear explosions there's in fact a whole group of soldiers that
came out and said that the government was testing nukes on them and that most of them became sterile
and they had all kinds of medical issues like are they just all lying what will be the point of
having all these people come out and saying the united states government's terrible and wicked
and was nuking its own citizens and i will never forgive them for that like what what's the sigh
out there i don't have a response for you yeah i do believe in nuclear explosions and stars and
of course they they take really great offense at the idea of me saying that um we went to the moon
but go go fast forward just a hair more to the 22 hour and 22 minute mark 25 second i brought up
the solar eclipses and specifically how the patterns do not match bring this up on the
screen before you play it yeah just bring that up um so notice that pattern and we saw it go
through dallas you can see that one line that's going through austin and texas and mexico and
kind of and drifting out you kind of see that line where we saw the solar eclipse have you seen that
one yeah i said that line specifically doesn't match your flat earth mobile spinning i said this
this doesn't match it so please explain to me why we see these various patterns and let's go ahead
and and play a little bit of this explanation here i'm not getting sound these pathways really do
match realities things that we've observed and seen and they do fit with the helo centric model
so i'm just curious from austin's perspective you know what he would he would say about the solar
and lunar eclipses that we observe that's about uh pastor shay brings up a valid point that the
globe model can make accurate predictions over time which is a good point and austin what is
your answer as far as their ability to predict uh the eclipses go ahead what say you yeah just
real quick i just want to say i just looked that up it says the earth in the open expansive space
says upon the face of the firmament like i said everyone can look that up but um eclipses that
the prediction of eclipses aren't exclusive to anything to do with the globe right it's not
exclusive to the earth being a sphere nor of the earth moving around the sun um it comes back funny
enough in the bal balonians the caldeans like 2500 bc of the sterile cycle that was built upon
before that you can actually go to adl dot place that's the anti-disinformation leak so it's the
good adl and uh you'll find all of this mapped out on a plane we can perfectly map out exactly
when it's going to happen on a plane earth and the sun and the moon they have their specific cycles
they even change like relative positions throughout time and it's just a cycle that repeats and in
both situations your prediction gets more and more accurate the closer it gets to the time of the
equation actually if you paid attention they changed the and he he said that i wouldn't go
here look this up or whatever but we're gonna go there adl dot place you can go to this guy's
website and he has this little model thing i think you have to scroll down a little bit maybe um
yeah so here's a little model now you're gonna have to play around with this for me but you
you can basically grab it i think at the top of this model and drag it down so you can see
it from a top down view um but you can you can shift this and rotate that top yep perfect
rotate it there and then see those bars at the bottom those you can adjust yes but i want to do
eclipses so you have to click there's a tab up above this model that says eclipses all right
yes perfect okay now scroll down just a hair there's a there's a button at the bottom that
you check mark that says like moon like you can show you can add the moon so you have the sun track
there you go moon track all right scroll up a little bit again now the top two bars they they
can you can see it spinning so you can adjust just grab them just move them just move them the top
two black bars yep see so we're going to cycle so this is what i was explaining their little
mobile design and just you can go you can go more violently if you want but it doesn't really matter
you can sit here and spin these however you want spin the top one or go to the use the top black
bar okay here's them spinning but you know what you're never going to notice ben you're going to
never notice the sun or the moon go through that path of north america you can kind of see it in
the center you see the black dot that's like the north pole and then we have the continent of north
america right there on the left just on the left side of that black dot and you would have to have
a line going through slicing through it this way and you literally never see it he said we can
predict every single one of these solar eclipses and stuff with these models they're plotted out
okay show it no way to recreate the most recent or any solar eclipse that has ever occurred
through this flat earth utility on the website well and not only would they have to do that they
would have to be able to just literally figure all this stuff hit the button play and let's cycle
through and show all of the solar eclipses from all the past decades and the future decades because
pastor anderson had demonstrated for us in the good friday debunked um episode just great episode
go check it out well pastor anderson showed us software that does have the moon and the sun
cycles based on a heliocentric model and it is something that you can constantly see project
they can give the predictions of when these things are going to happen the paths in which they're
going to come because look science has figured this out folks we can trace these things this
model while i'll give it was a pretty cool design as far as just like software programming like
it's cool that they're able to make something like this it's retarded at the same time because
their model doesn't prove cosmology it doesn't go back to the graphic that we had thankful they
made it so we can use their own model to refute their position yeah exactly if um the the solar
oh no it was in the video i'm sorry in the debate video we were we were getting a glimpse of the
graphic that uh if you just scroll back in time just a hair yeah there you go perfect so notice
again the their little spinning mobile does not make all these patterns impossible yeah it doesn't
work did you i mean show us how we're wrong austin show us on that model show us how you can have a
literal solar eclipse through that which again he can't because it's just not true folks it's not
legitimate go to an hour and 26 minutes and 40 seconds he's going to bring up the e cef
and i want to explain that as well where we kind of talked about this and we have a video that
we'll play just in the background but play the one hour 26 minutes and about 40 seconds of the
debate here here we go here and no they weren't just done in 1600s like i said they were done in
2500 bc by the caldians it's called the cerro cycle and they were a flat earth geocentric
civilization it isn't exclusive to either one they've reverse engineered the globe from what
we see in the sky like i said the predictions aren't exclusive to any belief and also just to
make sure you guys know what i'm saying the date is pretty well known to get to more narrow exactly
when in that day it'll happen you have to get closer to the actual time because of the periodicity
of the sun and the moon over time i'm talking about they changed the location so like the the
path of totality they were actually narrowing it down and moving it over by a few miles over
leading up to that moment and this was just well known and accepted and like mainstream articles
you could look it up now it wasn't it wasn't like hundreds of miles but my point is just this idea
is that there's a specific sphere with a specific size and we know where everything is and we're
going to be able to tell you where the eclipse is that isn't how it works the eclipse is based on
the periodicity of the sun and the moon it's been mapped out since 2500 bc it doesn't have anything
to do with the earth and the globe skip ahead a little bit because he's just elaborating at nasa
with the sero cycle we just made talking about how you can predict well no because typically
the ecs is using a sphere middle and we can see everything the way we do or it can go back a
little bit i'm sorry i probably isn't really required um go back like 30 you know but the
point is that even in the current model there's a back it up 30 seconds well no because typically
the ecf is using a sphere right so i don't know you gotta go like a minute now but the
sphere isn't really required 30 seconds um you know but the point is that even i love my group
is a kinematic and dynamic equivalence which is to face when i said in the middle and go back 30
seconds go back to like an hour and 32 minutes even i didn't mess them up today is that what
you were saying or probably it's ben's fault all right well let me read hey even we can make some
mistakes here hey he hang at the earth upon nothing folks go ahead and your model still man is because
everything occurs on the earth as if the earth's in a state of rest from the earth is always going
to look like we're stationary so to map everything you just treat it like it's stationary sorry you're
breaking up Austin your audio it's fine he brings up the ecf we'll come back for your point
go ahead and pause it it's fine let's go ahead and play the ecf ecf video because i wanted there was
there was a little bit of time where i talked about this and you can just play in the background
there's no audio um but i was talking about this and he kind of brought it up originally but you
have the eci and you have the ecif and i brought both of these up the ecf is essentially fixed with
the earth based on its rotation whereas the eci is fixed no matter how much the earth is spinning
and that's based on the idea of gps satellites needing to know how to pinpoint and send signals
to the earth and then the eci since it's not moving that's in relation to how stars
their light is traveling towards the earth in a fixed position obviously the earth itself is
orbiting the sun and so there's a slight variation there but those are helpful to determining gps
and specifically the movement of stars in our solar system and i just found it fascinating that he
would appeal to the ecf where it says earth centered effects sure but that's in respect
to the fact that the earth is literally spinning otherwise you wouldn't need it to to talk about
the earth centered or fixed because it's always fixed of course it's fixed there's no reason to
even bring this up the reason why we have the ecf is because the earth literally is spinning
and we need to figure out those coordinates and of course those coordinates are mathematically
calculated on a sphere shape and he's like well i don't really like the ecf because it's based on
a sphere and it's like so so then so what we have to now believe that satellites they're literally
lying they tell us that this is how they're calculating it based on the ecf and a sphere
but they're not really doing it on a sphere they're doing it in a completely different part of
their own secret science their own secret math or something and just to be clear when he brought
up that it's a model based on a fixed earth what he means by that is like the geocentric it's not
spinning slash it's not orbiting the sun is that what he thinks that that we that means so just
twisting the definition of what they mean when they use that word fixed well again if you look
up ecef in wikipedia it'll talk about how it's a geodidactic or something let me get the exact
terminology here because i don't want to i don't want to misspeak here but it is based on the earth
being uh stationary in a sense but and they'll say it's a geocentric coordinate system it's a
geocentric distance there's also like they don't mean earth at the center of the universe they're
not talking about geocentrism and that's the point that i tried to bring up and that but that's what
he thinks that that is referring to so they're using a geodetic datum so that's just the they
want to have a fixed position for the satellites just in the sense that obviously you are in a
fixed position you on the earth are in a fixed position or wherever they're sending these
coordinates to but since the earth is rotating they then have to tell these satellites specifically
where they're sending that specific signal in respect to the sphere because if they just send
it to the same point all the time well they're not going to send it to you because the earth is
spinning so you have the earth center fixed to say like this is where you're at no matter what
because while the earth is spinning that's the specific coordinates that you're in and it's used
in gps which stands for global positioning system they probably really hate that acronym of gps
here's another thing they brought up and i wasn't able to answer this on the show because i just
i couldn't remember i actually heard this in the past but i just didn't you know there's a lot of
stuff to learn they were asking me about thrust in regards to a vacuum i don't know if you remember
that question specifically but i was kind of trying to explain how whenever you uh go up off of the
earth from you know nasa specifically in houston or maybe they sometimes shoot off from uh florida
but they go up and they start orbiting the earth and then they use their thrusters just to get just
out of earth's orbit and then shoot in their trajectory towards the moon but since it is a
vacuum in space they don't really need a lot of thrust they're just already in a trajectory there's
no resistance so they're basically just maintaining speed towards the moon and the only thing they
would need the thrust for is to to basically recalibrate or to make sure that they're on the
right trajectory the right you know line pattern but the way that they get thrust is they literally
have oxygen on the rocket it's an oxidizer and they mix the oxygen with the fuel to create
the combustion so they're like oh how are you going to get you know combustion and all this
stuff in a vacuum they bring the oxygen with them folks and you know why they have oxygen on the
rockets Ben you tell me it's so the the astronaut can breathe like astronauts need to be able to
breathe and you know what do they need in order to breathe oxygen why do they have a spacesuit so
they don't die why because there's no oxygen in space i feel like you're a you've already schooled
all of these flat earthers in five seconds i'm yeah i mean clearly so what would happen if they
just lifted up their expert go ahead what if they just lift up their shield are they going to be
breathing you know what i'm sure flat tards would say absolutely yes oh you believe that we went to
the moon why not hey somebody says in the chat room here roblox some billionaire needs to send
flatheads to space just to shut them up all right i agree go to an hour and 57 minutes because maybe
keep them there too i want to i want to dissect one more word salad before we kind of end the
stream and i know it's been a while obviously at this point the flat earthers have already turned
off they they're crying we straw man them that's what they're gonna say they're you straw man we
didn't represent we misrepresented their argument we're mean i'm not willing to accept any of this
evidence yeah so you know you you can believe in nukes but i want to dissect one more word salad
and this one's a pretty funny one to me so go ahead and play the hour and 57 like the commenter
said obviously this this the view of these stars in the south pole totally disproves the flat earth
dude the orbit in the sun has nothing to do with magnetic declination corrections it has to do with
the observation of stars which was what the question was about so of course we have another
solid question i'm sorry another question you're gonna have to go back like maybe two minutes
go back two minutes or something and play maybe just go back a little bit more yeah go right there
play right there justin throws in a five or so he gets a little priority uh even though a lot of
people want to know why i suck so bad how do you explain the phenomenon of star trails and long-term
exposure photographs which show circular patterns centering around the south pole as this directly
debunks the flat earth model austin what say you yeah i explained that earlier it can be replicated
with like a dome and basically just reflecting out you also see crepuscular and anti-crepuscular
rays it takes some explaining but like the sun can set in the west and this is wild and so you'll
see the sun setting in the west and then there will be rays converging on the horizon in the
east at the same time looking like there's a sun like a light source over there that's because
that's how our perspective works it literally has a limit we have a limit in all directions basically
we have a dome of vision and everything towards the edge of that starts to converge and compress
and so it's literally a real thing called crepuscular and anti-crepuscular rays so you
can't really deny that it happens and if that was going to be applied to the sky or top of a
plain earth it'd be the same thing and again when they claim that it's going south actually they
use major magnetic declination corrections on the globe it needs to be directly south that we're
seeing it right but why do we have to correct 150 degrees 80 degrees 90 degrees that claim that
we're seeing it in the south so it's not exclusive to a globe earth i do get that if you believe the
directions corrections are correct you'd be like oh isn't that convenient it matches the globe it
doesn't until you correct the cardinal direction with declination and it can be explained with
vision like crepuscular and anti-crepuscular rays so uh yeah there you go all right there you go
let's pause it wow you're such an intellectual just okay what is crepuscular and anti-crepuscular
rays well let's just ask wikipedia and i know they hate this but um what is uh did you even
hear these words before this totally unfamiliar no of course not i i didn't either let's just
talking about let's just look it up just to double check but essentially it is at twilight
specifically sometimes when the sun is setting you'll see all these lines in the horizon kind
of uh going towards the center and all just colliding there in perspective click on that
picture on the far right this gives it see can you see those lines all converging towards the
horizon this is what it this is the crepuscular and anti-crepuscular rays now crepuscular is when
the lines are all converging towards the sun i believe and then what's interesting is how if
you look at the other side if you look at the east the anti-crepuscular would also show these
light rays on the opposite side and he's like oh it's wild the question was about star trails folks
and in fact crepuscular root word means twilight so crepuscular and anti-crepuscular rays are
dealing with the sun setting at twilight specifically go back to the the star trail picture when we um
maybe you can bring up that image again yeah that one this is what the question was about why are we
seeing star trails being clowner clockwise in the north pole clockwise in the south pole and straight
at the equator he brought up anti-crepuscular rays basically what sunlight looks like as it's nearing
at twilight sometimes you see an illusion of lines all converging which looks gorgeous it's a
beautiful sight it's cool i've seen it so nothing to do with the question but certainly a interesting
view i mean this this is the kind of and then he says oh view magnetic you know it talks about
magnetism and and and declination magnetism and and uh declination okay well let's look that up
magnetic declination what does magnetic declination have to do with star trails again let's figure it
out here yeah so i i just went to the national centers for environmental information which is
trying to explain magnetic declination and again this is talking about specifically how the
magnetism on the earth and you can kind of see maybe you can play that video a little bit i
don't know maybe if you click on it go to like about three minutes in like 18 seconds or something
on it and yeah yeah just click on that and just kind of make it bigger see if you can pause it
even just because you can kind of see so it's talking about how the magnetic fields and forces
on the earth are this interesting pattern and sometimes you have to make adjustments it'll
even bring up the idea of like how a compass may have to be altered based on true north versus
these this magnetic declination. Let's just read the definition magnetic declination sometimes
called magnetic variation is the angle between magnetic north and true north declination is
positive east of true north and negative when west magnetic declination changes over time and
with location as the compass points with local magnetic fields declination value is needed to
obtain true north. So essentially it's talking about how magnetism of the earth and using
compasses can sometimes have different results and vary a little bit based on north and magnet.
What does this have to do with stars going clockwise and counterclockwise? It does not
answer, it clearly doesn't answer the problem with your model Austin with regard to star trails
and how they go in different directions depending on where you are on the earth. It doesn't answer
it at all and we know what you're doing. We know what you did. Anybody with a brain can recognize
that you use these words to make it seem like you're smart, to make it seem like you're educated or
clued in. You're not. You just research it for a few minutes and you figure out that what you said
had nothing to do with the topic at hand. All. I have a meme for Austin about using these words
like "anticarpuscular magnetic declination" to address star trails and how they look different
depending on where you are on the earth in a spherical model. Yeah it makes me think of
this movie Princess Bride. Have you ever seen the movie Princess Bride before? I believe I have.
Okay. For once there's a movie that I've seen that you've seen. You keep using that word. I
don't think it means what you think it means. Antikarpuscular. Hey can you explain star trails?
Antikarpuscular rays. Antikarpuscular rays, yes. Magnetic declination. Well actually
Karpuscular ray. Stellar parallax. Wild. Things. The flux capacitor. You know it makes me think of
and I hate to reference this movie but it makes me think of that movie Anchorman and there's a
guy named Brick and he just he's just like lamps carpet and he's like are you just looking at
things in the room and just saying them it's like yes are you just are you just looking up
words in the dictionary and just saying them or like what what's going on and according to
you're just not smart enough find a difficult word in the dictionary and say it that is how
you win debates apparently yeah just bring up some obscure phenomenon in our solar system or
on our universe and claim that that somehow has nothing has something to do with star trails
okay he's so much smarter than us he understands it why wouldn't he have explained it in a
simplistic term where other people could even see like how am i supposed to be convinced or
won over if i can't even understand the argument you're making am i supposed to just immediately
just say you know what you're right you're smarter than me must be true you know whatever like look
this is a perfect time for me to bring up this scripture right here in first Corinthians chapter
14 it says in verse 8 for if the trumpet give an uncertain sound who shall prepare himself to the
battle so likewise ye except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood how shall
it be known what is spoken for ye shall speak into the air you cannot convince me that austin
is not speaking into the air on this in these clips that we have looked at in the debate that
he participated in this past tuesday that he's speaking into the air on purpose to snow you the
audience into thinking that he is of a higher intellect than the rest of us when in reality
if you actually want to be an effective teacher you have to break down the information so it's
palatable for people so they know exactly what you're saying that's the entire point i consider
and regurgitate information that you don't understand until i'm blue in the face and
accomplish nothing unless i want you to think that i'm super smart how about this verse roman's one
verse 22 professing themselves to be wise they became fools hey that was jay tank in the comment
section i figured you'd like that one ben all right let's play i really like that one let's
play uh a little bit more of this debate because i'm not going to do the whole show i think at
this point it's pretty obvious but there's there's a few more things that i just want to point out
that i find hilarious and and this is one where austin makes this claim there's no videos in space
of stars stars but we'll look at it and see if it lines up with where they claim they are it doesn't
exist though so there's no videos or they're all fake because i want to understand there are no
no there are no videos outside of low earth orbit even claim to be real with stars in the videos
like none so that's pretty sketchy don't you think don't you think if you went to space in a vacuum
all you would see is stars you'd be swimming in a sea of stars the first thing you would do is give
people like a 4k live stream of just beautiful i can take this camera outside right now and just
point toward the sky and you probably wouldn't see anything so it doesn't really matter i mean
yeah you can go about photographs of the guy so the guy is clearly ignoring exposure issues
that just because you take a picture of something or have video something you're not going to see
all the light in it i took plenty of pictures of the solar eclipse and it it's unfortunately
so underwhelming of what it really looked like but here is ISS showing us stars and again there's
other videos like this we actually have multiple videos of this um go if you would see if you can
pull up the 10 hour one that and and you can skip you can skip around it's like i'm just enjoying
the view right now what do you think ben i mean there's stars there so he hang at the earth upon
nothing how about when the bible let's get some bible verses going on this because you know one
of the things that i really like is uh this this passage from psalms when i consider thy heavens
the work of thy fingers the moon and the stars which thou hast ordained what is man that thou
art mindful of him and the son of man that thou visitest him so the bible's saying like when i
consider this the heavens and the stars and it makes me feel so small and just just like virtually
like nothing in this vast universe and that's the that's the psalm is saying like you know what is
man that i might have this little globe dome thing i'm sorry not globe this little dome half
semi-circle dome thing they have it's not nearly as impressive of course not it doesn't have the
same awe factor of all of these stars yeah here's another this is a 10 hour video and they have all
kinds of different shots here's even more stars that they're showing um you could skip around in
this video as much as you want some some shots don't have the stars but around the eight hour
mark i think uh they had a lot of shots i think of um stars that you could see so you gotta go a
little further yeah somewhere in somewhere around here i remember there was some shots that had
stars that you could see this is probably a picture in all fairness but as i did see some
examples in here so you can keep you can keep scrolling i just want to i want to keep going
through some of these bible verses here and and we might just kind of go through some of the other
points that i have that i didn't get to bring up in the debate real quick but you know the bible
says that the sun rises and goes down their flat earth model doesn't have that it doesn't
have the sun going up and down it's just spinning around and around the bible says from the rising
of the sun under the going down of the same the lord's name is to be praised and again that's
from an earthbound perspective that the sun's going up and going down but from their model
it's not even going up and down going further away from you you know i asked my nine-year-old
how we know that the earth is spinning and he said well because that's how we get a year
is the earth makes its orbit around the sun in a one-year time from these other models it doesn't
make sense even from a geocentric model geocentrism doesn't explain why we have a calendar year
geocentrism doesn't explain why we have the month which is the moon cycling around the earth it
doesn't explain the day which is one full rotation of the earth specifically or the week of course
is coming from genesis chapter number one you know and geocentrism is a dangerous doctrine that
is also denying reality gateway drug and the gateway drug to other reality denial and dangerous
things we should be afraid of someone that has this viewpoint the bible says he stretches out
the north over the empty place and hangeth the earth upon nothing the bible says that he about
the earth he created not in vain he formed it to be inhabited the bible talks about furs birds
flying in the open ferment i'd love to get in that genesis 120 argument specifically too let's go
let's just go a rapid pace just from a few more graphics i want to show a few more things can you
pull up graphic five and this is something that i think is interesting too the bible says in
genesis chapter number seven about the flood and the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth
and all the high hills this is another that were under the whole heaven recovered well okay what
about their stupid ice wall well they have to believe in a local flood that's how they get out
are they denying are they denying genesis seven that it was and it says even specifically like
15 cubits upwards right over everything but then they just have to deny they say oh believe the
bible okay i do believe the bible show me a flat earth model where you can have the water 15 feet
above you can't you literally can't it doesn't say like oh it was 15 feet above but then there
was this secret ice wall that was you know keeping everything in um and then the waters go to graphic
into space there yeah i want to go to graphic 11 or image 11 i'm sorry here's another argument
that we didn't bring up was just the the curvature of the earth on the moon here is an eclipse now
show image 12 because this is someone that was taking pictures the same night as the moon was
moving that's an interesting thing that's going on what about image 13 what if you drew a circle
around that i wonder what that would look like that's interesting isn't it oh i wonder what that
is that's blocking the moonlight go to image 13-1 go to the next one here's another this is a
completely different night from a different photographer showing all these journeys of the
moon it looks like there's this round spherical object that's blocking the light huh i wonder
what that has been in fact go to graphic 14 now how how do they even explain total total lunar
eclipses because whenever the moon goes through a total lunar eclipse we actually see it turn
bright red it's called a blood moon right which is explained by the light that's coming off of the
earth is is actually giving the moon that red color because it's blocked by the sun so the sun's
not showing shining its light we see these things these phenomenon happen i've seen i've seen the
red blood moons have you seen one before yes how do they explain that there is no way to explain
it just the phases of the moon cgi nasa fake you know yeah everything what can i say it just look
just it's right there folks go to graphic 32 ridiculous just the paths of the sun specifically
so why we have summer and winter is explained a little bit by the sense that the sun's pattern
like you have more to sunlight but again this is this this shape that we see of the moon and the sun
is not fitting their mobile flat design it's not going like this it's going up and around and down
the only way that's possible is if a the spin there is spinning or b everything in the universe
is spinning around the earth but here's here's why that's absurd that's absurd because you
would literally have stars traveling at like 10 or 100 or a thousand times the speed of light
in order to make these kind of journeys around it literally and it's been proven false with focu
pendulum the pendulum experiment with the gyroscope experiment there's just an infinite
number of reasons why this is this is why plus you have to deny all science regarding space
technology all like all the moon stuff all the satellites all these things they're just all lying
why would you even create the earth-centered earth fix gps coordinate system if the earth wasn't
spinning it's based on the fact that the earth is spinning and they need to have a fixed coordinate
system so they can communicate with those satellites you're just saying all of it's a lie
all of it's a lie so basically if you literally look into the sky and observe the sun setting
arising if you literally use google maps or any kind of gps device you're disproving flat earth
every time you do those things this is why i often say just look at the sky flat tart look at the sky
everything proves them it debunks you the horizon proves them wrong the horizon proves you wouldn't
even have a horizon on a flat earth model you would never have clouds meet the meet the horizon
line because they're always above them just the fact that clouds sit on the horizon line instantly
proves that the earth is curved okay here's what's interesting that people don't know this is the
Apollo 12 mission they made a microform version of the King James Bible that the astronauts would
take with them to space and specifically even on the moon they took the King James Bible and if you
could zoom in enough you could actually have you could realize this is the entire text of the King
James Bible isn't that incredible that is I think graphic 34 has the one from Apollo 14 and graphic
35 this is kind of an explanation of this microphone yeah that's a great image right there
that's it look at this oh I guess it just all lies it's all satanist and stuff like that it was
satanist that wanted to literally take the King James Bible and put it on the moon right just to
prove just to prove how bad like this is supposed to cause you to not believe in the Bible in fact
the Apollo 8 mission they literally read Genesis 1 on live television for everybody so I'm supposed
to believe that NASA is is a a goal to try and get people to not believe the Bible so they're
going to go up into space and read the Bible on national television live broadcast it talk about
how they're taking the Bible there and in fact there was a an individual that took a real Bible
like that we are not a real Bible I'm just meaning like what we think of as a copied physical
document parchment paper you know like what we think of as a physical Bible that we use on a
daily basis he took one and literally left it on the lunar module is the apparent story and it's a
king james bible amen to that hey at least if you know aliens find the moon you know they will be
king james they got the king james only no choice it's the only one they have leap years leap years
i don't understand they explain this every four years we're literally adding another day to our
calendar why why on their stupid little thing and if if we were doing this arbitrarily our seasons
would have changed so much over a couple hundred years to where we would be having christmas in
july as far as seasonally perspective like a seasonal it would be hot you don't think anybody
ever would notice that or notice this change go to graphic 43 here's the um the stars being flipped
upside down so in the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere in effect some stars i think
it's the southern cross can't even be seen from every perspective of the earth the moon is flipped
upside down so graphic 44 the next one um and notice how this is easy to understand actually
graphic 45 is even better that one's kind of blurry you don't have to be a pseudo intellectual
here go to graphic 45 this is easy you could show children this stuff um did it get mixed up because
there's one where it's like the earth and two people standing isaiah five says one to them that
are wise in their own eyes and prudent in their own sight that's yeah there we go so see this is
what this is the explanation thank you doesn't that make perfect sense why that would be upside
down yeah i mean it's it's like hey our side image instantly shows exactly what we believe
their side it's just like russians denied this and well it just all these baseless accusations
i want to show a couple more things i want to show one more thing that i think is really
interesting see if you can pull up pull up proverbs chapter number eight and i want to
just go through about the clouds a few verses here yeah yeah because because i find this
really fascinating when i was studying this topic because we talked about he says upon
the circle of the earth well it's that's words translated as compass in proverbs chapter eight
verse 27 so if you scroll down to verse 27 you might zoom in a hair because it's it's kind of
hard yeah perfect so it says when he prepared the heavens i was there when he set a compass
upon the face of the depth well that compass of the deep that is the hug word that is also in reference
to the circle in isaiah 40 verse 22 okay now again great no problem there but this is what's
interesting about proverbs what day of creation do you think he's referencing here when he prepared
the heavens what verse comes to mind um well i'm thinking about the creation of the sun moon and
stars okay let's scroll up a bit go to verse 25 because i want to see if you can come to the same
conclusion day four that'd be day four um okay so verse 23 i was set up from everlasting from the
beginning or ever the earth was when there was no depths i was brought forth when there were no
fountains abounding with water before the mountains were settled before the hills was i brought forth
while as yet he had not made the earth oh what day do you think we're talking about so far this is
he had not made the earth so what day we're talking about clearly we're like before the creation even
happened before day one right or day one yeah so before he had even made the earth verse 27
when he prepared the heavens i was there so what what day do you think we're on now we hit day one
at this point we're on day one right when he set a compass upon the face of the depth okay see if
you can do me a favor can you bring up genesis keep this here because i want to come right back
go to genesis one two and let's get this on the screen because i really want to help people
understand this point because it's a really great biblical point here can we not switch the tabs
or something see if we can just pull it up um genesis one our crew is fantastic folks
because i didn't even give them any prep and they're just doing stuff on the fly
yeah bring us scroll up again in the beginning god created the heaven and the earth and the earth
was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep i see so there's the connection
right there so verse proverbs 8 verse 27 he's putting the compass on the on the face of the
depth go back to proverbs 8.27 if you can is genesis one there yeah so there notice he says
when he said it comes upon the face of the depth look at verse 28 when he established the clouds
above which he strengthened the fountains of the deep now what happens on day two go if you went
to genesis chapter number one again if you can and go to so he creates light and then it's the
first day in verse 5 verse 6 scroll up a hair and god said let there be a firmament in the midst of
the waters and let it divide the waters from the waters and god made the ferment and divided the
waters which were under the ferment from the waters which were above the ferment and it was
so and god called the firmament heaven and the evening in the morning were the second day so
going back to proverbs we have a ferment in the midst of waters which he calls heaven and again
we call that sky okay that's what our word is that we use the sky what would be the waters above
the sky clouds what does it say verse 28 when he established the clouds above when he strengthened
the fountains of the deep so there you have the clouds and you have the oceans and you have what's
in between them the firmament which just means expanse or sky or space and so there's a space
in between the clouds that are above and the clouds that are below and then what is the next
one verse 29 when he gave to the sea his decree that the water should not pass his commandment
when he appointed the foundations of the earth what happens on day three plants and land well
there's not plants but go i guess yeah i guess there is vegetation right okay so go back to
go back to this verse nine and god said uh let the waters under the heaven be gathered together
into one place and let the dry land appear and it was so and god called the dry land earth and
the gathering together of the waters he called seas and god saw that it was good so you actually
have this mini day of creation in proverbs in proverbs chapter 8 where it's day one creation
where it's heaven and earth day two the clouds in the in the oceans day three you have the dry land
which go back to proverbs again and i just want to make that clear as we're kind of flipping back
and forth on these but notice what he said in verse 29 when he gave to the sea his decree that
the water should not pass his commandment what is the waters that are not passing his commandment
the dry land when he appointed the foundations of what of the earth yep do you see that yep it's
kind of like like once you've seen it it's like something you can't miss anymore and so we have
like a mini it's just kind of recapping the entire creation event right here but this is what's
really important verse 28 bring it back on the screen now that i kind of helped explain this
do you see what i'm yeah i get you yeah i get you totally verse 28 when he established the clouds
above so you know what that's explaining the water is above the ferment it's explaining but then all
these flat tards they just basically say that there's literally like water outside this dome
or something like that they have this like bizarre weird you know it's like it's like no folks we're
talking about the clouds the bible explains itself this is what it was talking about yeah the waters
which were above the firmament uh would be the clouds right there god made the firmament and
divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament
and it was so and you can go to proverbs chapter 8 and in verse 28 it actually tells you what the
firmament above i'm sorry what the water was above the firmament there so it makes perfect
sense and you know my view is even historical go go if you would to image 55 and i want to show a
lot of these there are excerpts from bibles of antiquity that show this view of this compass on
a sphere look at this this is in the 1300s this is a french bible from 1350 here is jesus with the
compass on the sphere on day one of creation is that not obvious yeah go to the go to the next one
image 56 here's a 1300s bible where there's what do you think that's representing here's to be a
spherical earth day and night yeah day and night yeah and it's per it's like right in the half
yeah because half of the earth is always lit and the other half is always dark okay go if you would
to the next one yeah yeah here this one is 1300s as well here's another sphere go to the next one
this one's another 1300s here's the compass on an obvious sphere because see those little
black lines they drew that's to help you visually understand that this isn't some flat disc but this
is rather okay an oblate spheroid if you really want to get technical or something but it you
could argue is even a perfect sphere at first and through the rotation of the earth it's spinning
that's what's caused the equator to slightly bulge because that's what they even argue to where it's
not a quote perfect sphere it's an oblate spheroid so maybe it was a perfect sphere on day one maybe
not i don't know it doesn't it doesn't really matter it's virtually a sphere folks go if you
would to image 59 here's multiple days of creation but you can see if you scroll into the top left
corner you can see that same sphere and notice the black lines again what he has in his left hand
there that is the circle of the earth there folks go to 61 go to image 61 same thing top left corner
the first day of creation you have what you have that compass so it's not like i randomly came up
with this interpretation interpretation i mean isn't this everybody it's illustrated this is
1400's bible illustrated in these images okay go to 62 how many do you need here's somebody
sitting on what the compass the circle of the earth right the circle of the earth circle of
the earth i mean image 63 how many more do we have to like here's him with the compass
image 64 we've got the creation of a spherical earth um here's interesting go to image 65
this is actually the first globe that we know about and i believe this so this is from 1491
and i feel like century here i this is what i feel like i was always told like everyone believed the
earth was flat doesn't appear to be the case until christopher Columbus right until 1492 when
Columbus sailed the ocean blue like everybody believed it was flat what about the person that
made this that's horseman or go to image 66 here's here's multiple old they all they were all flat
1700s 1500s here's plenty of globes go to i want to go to some maps too this is interesting go to
image 67 this is from 1507 here is someone's map of the world you know why they have those
odd looking shapes because they've thought it was a sphere look folks if ben can get it anybody
i'm just kidding ben's very smart get let's just play let's just play the map game image 68 oh
sphere image 69 this is incredible think about this they didn't have gps they didn't have all
of the modern technologies that we have today look at some of the accuracy of these contographers
yeah there's enough observable evidence that's why go to image 70 just keep going yeah this is a
1590s map and we got another 1500s map um this one's from 1500s the next one this is from 1627
here's one from 1753 the next one's 1707 this one's from the 18th century just kind of more of a vague
timeline 1858 now this next one 78 this is a japanese map from 1875 but look at the precision
of this particular map i mean this is incredible and oh i guess the japanese were in were japanese
nasa shills in 1875 they were nasa shills back then yes like what what in the world like the the
gaslighting of history is just in is just immense but i've noticed again i want to bring this up but
tyler doka who was this weirdo like pretended to be a pastor was a flat earther and he basically
just started denying all kinds of history reality to the point where he said that all the stuff of
jesus never even happened and then now he's the real jesus or something but it just goes to a
complete rejection of all historical fact and that's what's dangerous about these viewpoints
is people just start denying reality denying history denying well those on their face they're
scary because it's like if you're willing to deny all of this reality an objective fact what else
are you willing to believe that's what's scary about this all right just just give us some while
we're talking and finishing just give us some iis you know live stream footage of the circle of the
earth because that just i just love it especially the aurora lights isn't that cool it very very
much so yeah it's all fake phenomenon fake it's everything's fake yeah we're not even here see
what's interesting is this this individual in the chat here boby says i like how the maps are
progressively getting better more accurate the distortion of flattening a globe onto a flat plane
is always fun yeah i mean that was a good point that the the maps are actually getting better over
time showing their accuracy improving and it's like it's kind of funny it's like they they assume
like oh by the year 2024 just think about the progress we're gonna have and then it's like
men are women yeah you know joe biden's are president it's like saint amelek is making
this claim in the chat room it had already been theorized that the earth was brown that was a
great image guys good job john thanks so much for that john nelson darby started a propaganda
campaign to claim christians thought the earth was flat to make christians look stupid that's what
this person is saying in the chat j tank says on a globe there is an infinite amount of circles
which is again one of many reasons why to describe the planet as the circle of the earth to describe
it as a circle is perfectly accurate and more consistent with a globe than a cone or pancake
or whatever the hell shape they want to give it well and they always oh what about the ends
of the earth ends of the earth but it's like folks we're just talking about continents folks
or we're just talking about people coming from every part of the world it's there's always an
explanation for these these verses and it's funny how they want to be so overly literal in those
places and then cherry pick and be metaphorical on other places it's you know most of these people
don't even believe the bible they don't like church they're not going soul winning they're not
taking christianity seriously they don't believe salvation by faith and in fact if you meet most
flat earthers the most important thing they can possibly talk to you about is the shape of the
earth that's they're usually not focused on the gospel they're not focused on salvation well i've
experienced this i mean i've known you went to a church filled with these people yeah like i
mentioned earlier in the stream really the only time i've interacted with them on a consistent
basis has been when they popped up in churches i've gone to it specifically in jacksonville
when i went to our church plant out there for a while yeah there were some church members who
believed the earth was a flat disc and that was all they could talk about that is all they wanted
to debate me on that is all they wanted to have conflict over that is all they wanted to evangelize
that was it they wanted to talk about that constantly it was their main focus and it becomes
an obsession with these people it becomes this is what they live for this is what they evangelize
this is the their lie that they want to spread and it's scary and you know what jen let me mention
this real quick and i know we already talked about it but i want to quote it one more time
genesis 120 and god said let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath
life and foul that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven in the firmament the open
firmament you had austin in the debate claim that there is a dome a physical dome over the planet
and that the bible teaches this unequivocally do not twist the scriptures that way that is false
you are lying about what the word of god says it says that there is an open firmament in which
birds are flying inside of it explain to me how that's consistent with your model of a physical
dome it is not stop lying about god's word and twisting scripture well and you look at the
comments of the video and it's like jesus is king 13 the bible proves the earth is a sphere
no it doesn't it proves well or i'm sorry never mind i thought he said you got really mad sorry
sorry sorry go ahead my fault with the question marks the bible proves the earth is a sphere
where does he get this i don't see any scriptures that prove this extremely delusional flat earth
truther says big bang heliocentrism and evolution is a big lie yeah that's the name fe truther it's
it's like okay big bang a lie yes evolution is a lie yes heliocentrism no and again that's their
tactic bring something up that's obviously not true throw it in there um worst moderator ever uh
oh benjamin ruined the debate i'm just reading the comments i'm this isn't my opinion pardon my
language but owen benjamin is a uh worst moderator ever a lot of moderator comments here's the thing
folks i i'm glad that owen did the show because it brought a lot of attention to the show and again
we definitely had a spat at the beginning and i wish that we'd iron that out more but he was
somewhat fair i would say that he did he probably even gave me more talking time than austin
specifically um and again he did have a few moments where i strongly disagreed with his opinion i
mean he's telling me that uh observation is somehow not evidence which you know how could you have eye
witnesses in a law in a court of law if observation is not acceptable as evidence but at the end of
the day like hey the show got a lot of views on it and how can you really ruin a flat earth
debate it's already just kind of stupid like it's already just dumb the whole point was just to get
people to watch and owen brought a lot of people to watch the show so it was a success he didn't
he didn't ruin it would have been ruined is to have nobody watch it because i really don't want to
talk about this except for the fact that just proved the delusion that people under when they
deny the fact that our earth is spinning that our earth is rotating around the sun and look again
the sun is a picture of jesus and a picture of god and how you know our world it's not everything's
not evolving on us narcissist yeah we're evolved we're going around and revolving and orbiting
around god because it's about god specifically and again that's the point the point is and again
think about even false religion false religion is sun worshiping and again obviously it's based on
the truth that we're orbiting the sun people have known this in the past we know it today and there's
always going to be delusional people that reject this that don't believe it and you know i think
most people probably won't be won over or ever want to win be won over on this issue but if
you're out there and you're even kind of questioning it look you need to get on the right side of this
issue because technology and science is only going to get increasingly more advanced and this flat
earth position is going to look dumber and dumber in fact one of the india space explorers that
went to the moon literally took pictures of the united states leftovers from the moon you can
see it i sent the article to i think dylan because he was asking me about it but there's a i think
it was in 2015 if i remember correctly india takes pictures of and i think they had a picture of the
the lunar module the rover and the tracks that were on there as well and it was i think it was
in 2015 let me see if i wonder that's the last thing maybe we can pull up here as we're talking
about it but yes folks i believe we went to the moon what a show it's like oh because you just
love nasa it's like i don't care about nasa specifically go back to that search that you
had and look at the second link i think no maybe not let me let me see if i i can find it and i
can send it to you because i i sent it over well while while you search let me just fill the air
with a couple scriptures proverbs chapter four verse seven says wisdom is the principal thing
therefore get wisdom and with all thy getting get understanding and there's a reason why we are as
vociferous as we are in this stream and you could argue maybe some vitriol but the reason why is
because we want people to be smart we want people to get wisdom and especially if you're going to
represent the scriptures the word of god as a professing christian you want to do so in a
responsible manner proverbs chapter 18 says a fool hath no delight in understanding but that his
heart may discover itself and you know one of the attributes of someone who's foolish or stupid in
our society that's what we would call them they don't want to get understanding they don't want
to face facts they don't want to learn and so you know the reason why you could argue that we are as
aggressive on this as we are is just because of the fact that we want people to be smart especially
like i said if they're going to profess christianity if they're going to appeal to scripture
then you ought to be someone who has some wisdom it should be something that all of us try to attain
and try to continue to grow in because at the end of the day this idea of like well let's just be a
country bumpkin you know what i mean i'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer and i can't
read every word on the page no that's not how god wants us to be so we've we've i found the article
that brings up and and again i believe this was an indian mission where they were sending their
specific space lunar module dylan and that says you could see the shadow of the flag well they
took pictures see look at that you can see the pictures of the flag notice also see if you can
zoom really into this image because it's kind of hard to see on the screen but if you zoom in on
that image a little bit you can actually see the tracks in so scroll up yeah look at that do you
see the tracks from the lunar rover see those little tracks that are yeah you can still see the
tracks of where that lunar rover was driving around because again it doesn't have much it
doesn't have an atmosphere and so like these things are kind of preserved in time and so you
have the Indian lunar module going overhead taking images taking pictures so that yeah the lunar
modules there right there in the center there's the flag shadow there's the tracks and that's
apparently where the rover went to you know sit so i mean again oh it's all fake photoshop it's
all lies someone said oh you believe india went to the moon like they're all dumb and stuff like
that but you know i was thinking about this way ben don't people in america get scanned by indians
all the time i feel like you're an expert in this yeah they must have some kind of smarts right to
be able to pull that off well it's like okay india is so dumb but then they're scamming americans all
the time you have gift card we yeah you do it better than me yeah give us give us some go to
home depot and go get the 50 gift card you needed right now but here's the thing this is what makes
our stream complete i yes i've offended you know all indians now it's like okay indians that come
over here they okay yeah a lot of them own 7-elevens okay but they're also doctors and
computer programmers i was gonna say the computer you're in the computer programming world how many
of them are indians you have a lot of them that get into that field and that's a smart field india
still hasn't put a man on the moon only the united states so if you think about it the indians are
still behind 1960s america okay so they haven't even arrived at the 1960s of america yet uh you
know what are we oh 50 plus years past that point you know is it really that crazy to think that
they're only six there's 60 plus years behind us in technology in that regard um or bravery or
however you want to argue it and again why is every technology sector full of indians you know
it's just silly they actually are smart yeah of course they are so some of them obviously yeah
you know they're very smart i want to give shout out to every indian i love i love every indian
i hope they all get saved by believing the god i do i love i love indian people i hope that they
believe the gospel yeah i mean i i don't like their food i don't like the smell of their food
i don't really like their culture i don't like their country but that doesn't mean i can't
believe they went to the moon okay and think about it as biased as i am against indian food
for me to say that they went to the moon i mean it just it's just a fact at that point i'll take
you to get some indian don't change your mind no you know that this is this is like flat earth
you know logic again it's like oh if you look into it i want to do it will you debate me on what
indian food it's already over i already won i challenge you if you can get i challenge you
to a debate on indian food okay well you already lost so next saturday right here let's do it no
when it comes to this what was austin's best argument that's my response back to you pester
what was an argument you made that even made sense again this is what they want to say oh
we falsify the r value we falsify the radius how show the experiment give us the the the
repeatable results and we'll all do it we'll all do the same test it's like we we destroyed
flatter folks it's over that thing doesn't exist it's been nuked look this is what they'll say
oh you got you know you you you misrepresented us on the stream and then you got your your yes
man over here to just agree with you you could have put anybody in this seat it doesn't matter
like most people don't believe it's a freaking flat disc okay my nine-year-old child would have
won the nine year like no that's not a that's not an argument against what we did on the stream
tonight you could have put anyone here and they would have agreed because we actually hold the
majority position on this one okay let's read a few comments we'll wrap up robar said those maps
are cool i agree don't you agree on the maps i mean that was i thought those were awesome yeah
i thought the globes itself was pretty interesting i like this comment indian food is good in england
well obviously commenters can lie you know obviously people can like bad things okay so obviously the
kings of juda sometimes went and hung out with the kings of israel and you know they liked them but
just wasn't right see i'm trying to come up with a witty comeback but all the foods you like i like
too so it's hard for me to do that right i like good food you like good food and bad food so you
just kind of you want to put it that way broad in your perspective you know you don't want to mix
faith and works like i'm faith alone you have faith and works and so we got to get you back
on the faith alone path sure he kept saying there wasn't video of stars this person says cook justin
uh let me repeat this here he kept saying there wasn't video of stars from space and 24 hour
antarctica but i just saw it on youtube yes that's what happens you can go to youtube and it'll
debunk what they're saying because it's very very easy to do so always baptist says you can literally
see satellites in very dark areas i've seen them when getting out of the city roblars i've lived in
hanford nukes are real pastor shelly like this trade selector pastor shelly likes food that's
popular even in podunk podunk and podunk podunk where he grew up i grew up in podunk i thought
you're from new york well i was born there and then i was raised in canyon texas i don't know
someone says owen doesn't believe in nuclear bombs not kidding that's that's crazy to me he said j
tank says was his shirt getting more unbuttoned as the video went along i was trying i was trying
not to observe that i guess you know my ignoring all the real can i can i flat earth argument add
one last thing yeah just as icing on the cake here for the flatter stuff because i i like aviation
and you know you could take a look at the flight plans for several long-haul flights specifically
the popular one to look at is and if i mispronounce this help me santiago is that right okay chili
whatever santiago said to help me not laugh at me anyway uh you look at this uh the flight plan
for the long-haul flight from santiago chile or chile however the hell it's supposed to be
pronounced to sydney australia and what you'll notice is that in aviation they take the shortest
points on a sphere and utilize that for their flight plan you can also observe this on flights
from north america to asia as well which tend to go over the arctic additionally you look at flights
from south america to johannesburg in africa and south africa specifically so you have these
different long-haul flights that prove the earth is here because let's go back to the flight from
i don't think south america exists well that's retarded you look at chile to sydney for example
australia if the earth was flat you would notice the flight plan going over california all right
you would you would have aircraft that would fly again because the earth is is a globe what they
would be doing is they would be kind of flying like here to i don't know if you guys can see this but
it would go from here to california then back if the earth is flat but that's not what they're
doing because it is a sphere so they take the closest two points on a sphere and use that
i don't think your argument makes sense because if the earth was a sphere wouldn't it have to be
bigger than this i mean how are we going to fit how could we be sitting on something this small
bin yeah that's true i didn't think of that it has to be at least three times bigger than this okay
i actually get the reference for once anyway i just wanted to bring up the flight plan proof
evidence because it's one of my favorites well you can't observing flights and observing things
is not evidence that's right i forgot about that youtube videos are the only thing that's evidence
right but as long as they're pro flatter pro otherwise nasa in their own words nasa is fake
otherwise in their own words we cannot accept it if it doesn't fit yeah we can't accept these
results yes we can't accept these results well again if someone needs to go to antarctica to
prove that the earth is a sphere and what we said is true they won't be convinced not willing to
accept that i'm sorry that was the direct quote doesn't the bible say something about people
being willingly ignorant yes yes uh this is similar obviously that's not the context of that
passage but yeah wouldn't you say it's a similar ideology or a similar i think that it's it's
definitely people who are willingly ignorant but i also do subscribe to the thought that this is
the judgment of god okay it's the judgment of god on people for being morons is that he puts them
under this delusion and folks that is what it is it is a delusion that they are under right now as
a judgment of god you know there's no question in my mind and so what we're doing on this stream is
trying to shake them out of their trance if it's even possible is to try to shake them out of their
trance and we'll see maybe it works maybe it doesn't i don't know yeah i mean jesus talks
about those whom he loves he rebukes and you know obviously making fun of people doesn't
necessarily always fit the right situation or it's not always appropriate but i think when you're
this delusional and you have such bad ideas making fun of people works and here's the thing i've made
fun of people for dumb views and they have changed their mind and the bible says rebuke a wise man
and he will love these so you know if i believe something stupid and someone makes fun of me and
i end up changing my mind i shouldn't be mad at that person i should be like hey thanks for
you know laughing me out of that right things are mocking me out of that um the biblical uh authors
he prophets they mocked and ridiculed people the apostle paul made fun of people jesus made
fun of people um when we have the prophet elijah he made fun of people it's not just ad hominem
it's a a rhetoric tool to help show someone look you're you're so wrong it's laughable what you're
saying is so bad that i can't help myself but just laugh and god laughs at people and he's laughing
at their stupidity and instead of being a laughing stock you should just recognize that people are
laughing at you it's probably you have something wrong you need to really check yourself and make
sure that you're right now again obviously the world will laugh and scoff at jesus and christians
and we get that but when it's virtually everyone you know you've got some serious problems someone
said that flat earth is inevitable it's it's it's dumb folks it's a psyop they're tricking people
it's a punishment from god for being on drugs or being stupid or something you really really i
would love to see a someone do a study on how many flat earthers have smoked weed like what would be
the crossover like what percentage of flat earthers have smoked weed in their life and it's like is
this like brain damage in some in some ways because i wish you could have gotten that question out
in the debate you know it's just it's just unfortunate that would have been on ad hominem
which it is it is a little bit in the sense that like you're attacking the character but it's also
just me trying to genuinely figure out like why what's wrong with these people you know what
here's the thing about the stupid logical fallacy look i'm not saying logical fallacies don't have
a place like we shouldn't learn them or something like that but you have to first of all understand
what they actually are make sure you have the right definition and second it's up to the audience to
determine whether someone's guilty of a logical fallacy it's up to the audience to make that
determination and when you just spout them off one after the other and claim that's what your
opponent is doing it sidetracks the conversation and again whether you think pastor shelly was
guilty of 25 logical fallacies in a row does it make what he said untrue well again here's the
thing that people don't understand about logical fallacies someone could bring up the idea of
something being a logical fallacy and it's still true that's so actually my point so you could say
like oh well he appealed to an authority but the authority could be true and how far do you want
to take that i appeal to authority all the time yeah but i'm just saying it's circular reasoning
they say we're guilty of that i believe the bible because bible but you know they bring up all kinds
of different reasons why something technically doesn't always fit perfect logic but it could
still be true in the sense that they'll say like hey um this this person is a man okay they'll say
like ben is a man and then you say so this other man is ben well that's not always true right isn't
there some men that are not ben yes but couldn't it also be true that you point to someone and
they're actually still ben there's another ben in the world there could be another ben yeah right so
it's like you point out these these things and it's like okay well we can't know for sure that
that's true it's not a hundred percent airtight but it still could be a legitimate reason or
something to believe in hey i hate someone put this in the mold of counselors there's safety
it's like hey when we have all these different people saying all the same things and this is
what awesome wants to do well i know you have a hundred evidences why the earth is a sphere
and helo centric but i falsified the radius maybe you're wrong on that calculation buddy
maybe you're getting that off somehow when we have so many clear evidences so much clear evidence of
just all and again you don't have to be a rocket scientist you don't even have to be a biblical
expert to understand these truths the five-year-old children know the shape of our earth and we have
to realize this is not an intellectual argument typically i think it's a spiritual argument of
people being blinded because we've already demonstrated how clear it is spiritual problem
so when people have these views it kind of illustrates there's probably a bigger issue
it's not really an intellectual issue it's it's almost like a spiritual issue or a pride issue
or or a punishment or a drug like there's something else under the surface on these
particular issues and i'm not trying to just do that to that homonym we already proved it wrong
we tried to be fair and and listen to their arguments they don't have any it's all just
foolishness it's nonsense all right we can talk about this forever i'm i'm so done with flat
earth i don't want to talk about it if you come to me in person i'm just going to be like watch
the video and i'm never going to get in your car what are your last thoughts i think this was a
thorough repudiation of the flat earth idiocy and we went into great detail we went up one side and
down the other and so i just appreciate the opportunity to be part of this adding some
color commentary to the research that you did and i would invite you if this is going to sound
like it's coming out of nowhere but if you're listening to this stream and you're not saved
sbckjv.com please right now go watch the bible way to heaven because that is the supreme issue
and that is what really matters is getting saved immediately what one more question what was of the
things that we talked about and stuff what was the coolest point or something maybe you learned
they can think of anything new yeah i mean i think the um fuko his uh pendulum experiment i thought
was really cool um i i mean i it's okay it's a hard i'm not gonna french name try i thought it
was japanese honestly i'm not going to try to pronounce that so i don't cuss on the air
accidentally but there was a lot of good stuff i mean i really liked uh the part where you talked
about the the star uh the starlight how it looks different the star trails what about the finger
thing was that i know it seems a little childish but it seems a little childish doesn't it kind of
help you understand it's something that you don't realize till you do it like you don't really think
about it until you do it it's it's very basic stuff but i appreciated that uh what you kind
of brought up there um yeah i mean there there was a lot there was so much that you talked about but
i think oh how about when you just showed map after map after map of antiquity over and over
and over again disproving the idea that the spherical earth is some sort of modern invention
by nasa or something like that when we could point to historical documents we could point to
bibles one after the other showing this but if i'm going to pick one thing i really liked your
explanation and comparison of the creation story in genesis chapter one to proverbs chapter eight
and how you show that proverbs chapter eight actually goes through a chronological order
of creation and you could use proverbs eight to prove that the waters that are above the
firmament are in fact clouds so that was really great stuff yeah i think i had discovered that a
long time ago but i'd forgotten and then revisiting this topic it refreshed me and i
i just think it's amazing the video super cool of the circumnavigation of antarctica was great as
well the video i love kobe cotton the dude perfect one the video of dude perfect going into space
was great as well the video of the sun being in the air daylight for four straight months
the time lapse video was also intriguing there was so much yeah and again it's all fake it's all fake
ben everything evidently you can't even trust mcdonald's it's real the food is real hey i'm
with you and everything that we just learned is fake we can talk forever that's gonna pretty much
do it for us check us out this tuesday because we're gonna have the daniel series episode one
it's gonna release everyone's got a perspective people you need to get the baptist bias by flat