Chat Replies for “DEBATE: Flat Vs Globe | Alan & Toby Vs PhD Tony & Darryl | Podcast”

Copyright © 2024 by Darryl E Berry Jr

Live on 3/2/24

Last updated 3-10-24

Hey you all. Here are some of my answers to a few repeated questions / challenges / attacks / critiques / observations throughout the video comment threads. I may update this periodically, including adding timestamps, etc:

* The flat Earthers were caught in a despicable collusion (1:02:33 and screenshot), including the dishonest tactic of trying to get us upset rather than discussing the topic, and getting preempted for and fed super chats to pad their responses. Let it be known that Tony and I had no communication before the debate, nor during except for the debate itself. No one was feeding us information or tactics, nor deceiving the other side and the audience by sending us prepared super chats. There was no plan to derail the conversation by psychological attacks, but to address the topic at hand. We have facts and truth on our side and therefore we have no need for dishonest tactics. Are we talking about NASA who was engaging in and interacting with dishonesty and deception? No. It’s the flat Earthers.

*To people criticizing that I deferred to experts: Since it’s bad for me to defer to experts, then please explain why flat earthers are basing their arguments on the experts through the scientific papers of the experts? Moreover, why do they pick and choose? They accept surveyor measurements when they want to show their black swan image for instance, but then say the science and methods are fake or lies or whatever when the same surveyor techniques (for instance, by the Maine Surveyor) show that the Earth is a globe. They reference and base their position upon the Michelson–Morley experiment (apparently abbreviated MMX) paper. However, they don’t even read the entire thing, and/or only just word search or focus on FE echo chamber highlighted sections, and/or ignore that the paper itself says the Earth and solar system moves. They bring up other scientific papers too, such as by Wang, but then say the expert they invoked to support themselves is wrong when the paper disproves their claims. It’s amazing.

*To people saying I asked random qotcha questions: I didn’t ask random questions of the flat Earthers. I asked specifically about what they presented themselves as experts on. There’s a difference. Relativity. “MMX”. Probabilities. Evidence. Etcetera. They failed again and again. It’s all in the debate. Truth be told, they tried to gotcha me by trying to turn it back on me, when they claim to have read and, in some sense, taught “MMX” and other papers for so many hours at a time. I only read it and the other papers I addressed once quickly the day or so before. However, with even my meager base of genuine understanding of math and science, I could debunk and expose their misunderstanding. I suspect this is why flat Earthers don’t go to universities or space agencies to have honest conversations with the experts. They would be even less able to get away with misrepresenting science than with Tony and I – with me of course being less knowledgeable on things than Tony and other experts.