• Welcome to White Horse Forums. We ask that you would please take a moment to introduce yourself in the New Members section. Tell us a bit about yourself and dive in!

Hello again

Gleason92 said:
For sure. But as PJ knows, there’s clearly something off about him.

The true warrior who is the pinnacle of apologetics for our flat earth reality at the moment is Austin Witsit.

The man is a master of understanding and calling out literally every single logical fallacy hurled at him. He can recite segments of peer reviewed papers, up to and including the special theory of relativity, OFF THE TOP OF HIS HEAD. He understands and debunks literally every single challenge imaginable.

Here’s what he figured out; our flat earth reality, the object of earth itself is a plane Euclidean geometric object. Our eyeballs perceive light in a non Euclidean spherical space. That’s it. That’s what is being used against us. Just one random example from him I think is brilliant.

But here is where it gets crazy: our defense of this earth has to be limited to what’s under our feet, literally. If you follow that logic, the earth is empirically flat. HOWEVER, when you look to the sky, there is certain motions of the stars that don’t follow normal geometric behavior. I’m still trying to work this out but it’s something to do with, everything moves its position As you elevate, except stars.

There has been 2 flat earth explanations, really one.

1-not our concern, since we’re focused on the shape of the earth

2-it’s the Aether and we’re back to the late C 1800s.


Years ago I was here telling everyone a certain YouTube was the best and his name is John, goes by quantam eraser. I’m fairly convinced he trained Austin, based on Austin’s understanding of certain arguments and logical fallacies. However, Quantum eraser policy did train Nathan Oakley.

Nathan Oakley uses his new knowledge to craft the argument that all globe measures and maps are sourced from flat earth measurements. Technically he’s correct and that’s brilliant.

Works like this; when using the sextant for celestial navigation, you have your ground position (gp) and your star. You have to measure a flat horizontal baseline on the ground, then up to the start to get your angle. As you move asking your baseline, you take new angle measurements of the same star.

Heres the key, that flat horizontal baseline is the earth. Globers TRY to say it’s just one point (since they contend sphere) but that’s mathematically impossible, then they say the baseline is an invisible eyeline level, pure bollocks.

I tell you this because on Nathan’s show he uses a discord server and has people call in or he visits other servers with groups of people. He stumbled on Austin. They had a drag down knock out brawl, Nathan was all over him.

I was cringing, these are like literally 2 off the top 3 and Nathan is showing no mercy and Austin is ready to just leave.

The argument was that Nathan was certain he’s proved flat earth and doesn’t need to explain the star anomaly, when he passed Austin, all Austin could say was maybe the stars do move if it get high enough. That sounds suspiciously globe-y. The reason he has to say that is because he essentially believes the electric type universe theory that includes the aether. That’s where he gets weird. But I don’t let that stop me from learning from literally the best communicator on the topic. Same as I’ll watch Eric all day long, with the best discernment I can muster.
Click to expand...

Found him.... Witsit gets it.

View: https://youtu.be/b7kNYbjF3RI?si=Ds004Mbkh8Whv7N4
 
Mr E said:
ooohhhhh I like him. Very articulate and bright.
Click to expand...
lol, the actual link you shared, I would qualify as one of his worst performances, sincerely.

He dumbed down his approach here since this was what he viewed as a big break. Leveraging the infowars audience to send his message. Take a look at his modern day debate episodes against real “anti flat earthers”
 
Gleason92 said:
lol, the actual link you shared, I would qualify as one of his worst performances, sincerely.

He dumbed down his approach here since this was what he viewed as a big break. Leveraging the infowars audience to send his message. Take a look at his modern day debate episodes against real “anti flat earthers”
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not sure what link I shared. From Nathan Oakley, PHD Astrophysicist says, he's never encountered about flat earth that he can't answer, the guy says how can you have a vacuum without a container? He just sits there for 5 or 10 seconds and the guy says PHD ASTROPHYSICIST Danny Faulkner
 
patrick jane said:
Well, I'm not sure what link I shared. From Nathan Oakley, PHD Astrophysicist says, he's never encountered about flat earth that he can't answer, the guy says how can you have a vacuum without a container? He just sits there for 5 or 10 seconds and the guy says PHD ASTROPHYSICIST Danny Faulkner
Click to expand...
Hi brother, I’m referring to the link for Witsit dropped by Mr. E

I listened to that whole Nathan Oakley/QE treatment/breakdown of that deceiver Danny Faulkner.
 
Gleason92 said:
Hi brother, I’m referring to the link for Witsit dropped by Mr. E

I listened to that whole Nathan Oakley/QE treatment/breakdown of that deceiver Danny Faulkner.
Click to expand...

Edit to add:

I think you’re referring to Nathan Thompson (young American man vs Nathan Oakley my age British guy) and his famous clip of shoving the mic in Danny Faulkners face 🤣

Ironically, Faulkner just wrote a flat earth bashing book and Nathan Oakley spent days just rightfully trashing it, pure gold.
 
Gleason92 said:
lol, the actual link you shared, I would qualify as one of his worst performances, sincerely.

He dumbed down his approach here since this was what he viewed as a big break. Leveraging the infowars audience to send his message. Take a look at his modern day debate episodes against real “anti flat earthers”
Click to expand...

I'll look at some- thx.

I wish he would have pushed back a little harder against his debate opponent, for sure. He could have, but instead politely and patiently let him interrupt often. Witsit could have insisted that the InfoWars debate opponent hold himself to the same standards and proof burdens that he imposed, while seemingly with a wave of hand, he would dismiss Witsit's ideas as not perfect without ever admitting that the globe model is worse.

It was a little comical to me to see an InfoWars segment where the premise was propped up for folks to just believe what they've been told. :ROFLMAO:
 
Mr E said:
I'll look at some- thx.

I wish he would have pushed back a little harder against his debate opponent, for sure. He could have, but instead politely and patiently let him interrupt often. Witsit could have insisted that the InfoWars debate opponent hold himself to the same standards and proof burdens that he imposed, while seemingly with a wave of hand, he would dismiss Witsit's ideas as not perfect without ever admitting that the globe model is worse.

It was a little comical to me to see an InfoWars segment where the premise was propped up for folks to just believe what they've been told. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
He (Austin) did a multi hour 2 part breakdown of his own performance and admitted he used “kids gloves” on this one. But you are so right, how I wish he gave it back as good as he was getting it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top