MCToon effectively exposes how flat-earthers misuse scientific language to dodge objective reality. It’s a sharp reminder that sophisticated jargon cannot hide a fundamental lack of logic.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Flertfs John Stunja and Adam Meakin published a book. How many thumbs-down can I give it?Added:
Get ready for the smackdown.
Get ready for the smackdown.
What you going to do when you're hit with THE FACTS NOW? WATCH OUT FOR THE SMACKDOWN.
In a world where truth is bad, we got science on our side.
Dirt pizza, it's all pretend, but will be our Get ready for the smackdown.
Get ready for the smackdown.
Stand alive.
WATCH OUT FOR THE SMACKDOWN. THEY CLING TO ANCIENT MISCONCEPTION.
We got truth in our possession.
No room for doubt. No room for doubt. No time TO WASTE. NO TIME to wait. It's time to put the next down.
Get ready for the smack down.
Welcome everybody to Tuesday night on a Monday as it will be for the next couple months. Anyway, um I am going to be reviewing this book. I got this book. I ordered it. I paid money for it so you don't have to. though I've somebody sent me a PDF of it. So, actually a bunch of people uh sent me a PDF of it. Anyway, so welcome everybody. Um I've I've uh I can't you can't cover the whole thing. There's so much derp in it.
It's so dumb. But um I I'll probably go over the two or three chapters of it. Um TimDavidson. Oh my gosh. already already with the Hold on. I'll show you I'll show you what I'm talking about if you don't know.
He He did this this right here. I mentioned Cranberry song stuck in your head.
But do they have to let it linger?
Yep, they don't. They don't have to let it linger. Um anyway, I uh I also thought you know what what if what if we did some another thing too before but uh uh anyway uh it a little bit once I start maybe maybe people can let QE know and he can join in the live chat here and give us his his wisdom. Mostly dumb some whiz. Um oh yeah and I've got a cat I've got a cat in here that's in heat.
Also, see the shadow on my face?
There's a camera. The P1000 is right there. And there's a light right here shining down on on that. So, I I uh set up the camera again so that you can you can see it. But the camera's not working at the moment. I need to reboot it or something. I don't know. I'll I'll do that. It'll work. It'll all work. I It work It worked earlier. Um anyway, what what was I going to do? I'll show you what I'll do. I'll show you what I'll do.
What time is it? It's time to own a right. I'm going to photo blur. I I didn't I didn't get it. All right. Now I got it. Okay. Here we go. Calling.
Hopefully it works. This call is being routed by Google. The cost of this call is 1 cents per minute.
>> For you people, I'm paying this 1 cents a minute for you.
Your call has been forwarded to voicemail. The person you're trying to reach is not available.
>> All right. Not leaving a voicemail. I had a plan, but the plan does not include a voicemail. I can't. You know who I was calling. That was not Kiwi.
No, that was not Kiwi. Okay, so back to this. Let me tell you about this. This is a book. If you don't know, this is by John Stunga, one of the most horrible, disgusting people on the planet. And Adam Meakin, who's who's not so horrible. Um, but I I think most of this is is uh stuna. So, um, this is great. This is great. Uh, hold on right here. Brenda says, "I noticed right away that QE did not follow the Chicago style manual for references. He would fail eighth grade English." He would fail eighth grade a lot of things.
a lot of things eighth grade Kiwi could not handle. Kiwi is the other name for um quantum eraser or John Stunga.
Um if you don't know, he he's just an allaround disgusting and horrible person. um to to to really um a friend of mine who is a Christian, has been in this in this uh arena for a long time. Early on, received an email from John Stanja. In the email, John introduced himself as a brother in Christ um to this this friend of mine. and uh then in the in the following years has proceeded to be an absolute horrible disgusting person to this brother in Christ. That's right. QE claims to be a religious flurf, but um you can ask yourself, is the fruit on the tree?
Feel free to ask yourself that. I'm seeing uh somebody's saying uh buffering, but I'm not seeing it on my side here. So, I did I got new new new bandwidth, so it should be good. All right, I need to reboot the camera, which means I need to go around to the other side of the desk. So, while I do that, while I do a little debugging, I'm going to play something um for you. And if you haven't seen the um um the video that I did on Conspiracy Tunes earlier today, you really should.
It took off. It absolutely took off.
very uh big uh hits on it as far as volume um on on who is the who is faking flat earth or who is faking space. Who is faking space? Well, it is to nobody's surprise the flatearthers and the kingpin of the flatearthers that is faking space is David Weiss.
>> Yo yo yo your boy slick pockets house. I got an app that's going to change your life. But before you download, let me slice through the stripe. They say the earth's a glow, but I beg to differ. I'll make you believe.
I'll make What happened?
Why did it do that? I don't know why it did that. Maybe uh weird. All right, I'll I'll do I'll fire it up again. Yo yo yo, listen up. It's your boy Fir in the his house. A plan so slick. Going to make your pockets his house. I got an app that's going to change your life.
But before you download, let me slice through the stripe. They say the earth's a glow, but I beg to differ. I'll make you believe. I'll make you shiver.
Spectroscopy needs a container. That's my claim. I've got no clue. I just hang my head in shade.
Yo yo yo yo listen up. It's your boy Dirt His got a plan so slick going to make your pockets his house. I got an app that's going to change your life. But before you download, let me slice through the stripe. They say the Earth's a glow, but I beg to differ. I'll make you believe.
I'll make you shiver. Spectroscopy needs a container. That's my claim. I've got no clue. I just hang my head in shame.
Turn up. That's the light I'm preaching.
Sell my app. It's what I'm seeking. Fake a challenge. Try your luck while I'm laughing.
I'm a scammer.
>> I'm a scammer.
>> I'm a scammer.
Flatter. That's the lie I'm preaching.
Sell my app. It's what I've seen. Your fake challenge. Try your luck while I'm laughing. Pocket in a buck. I'm a scammer.
>> I'm a scammer.
>> I'm a scammer.
>> I'm a scammer.
>> Yo yoammer.
>> Talk about Antarctica, the icy place.
Offered a free trip. Dangled it in my face, but I won't go. It's not about thrift. I'm staying home. Got to protect my grip. I'm a scammer.
I'm a scammer. Yo yo yo yo. Dave Weiss is a scammer.
Talking about Antarctica, that icy place. Offered a free trip. Dangled it in my face. But I won't go. It's not about thrift. I'm staying home. Got to protect my grip. I'm a scammer. About to go that icy place. Offered a free trip.
Dangled it in my face. But I won't go.
It's not about brick. I'm staying home.
Got to protect my grip. I'm a scammer, a scammer. I play the game. Going to hustle hard. Going to rise to fame. But remember one thing. It's all a ploy to make that green. I'll be your decoy.
So if you want to join, come take my hand. But beware the tricks. It's all planned. T I T R H. That's my name. In a world of scams, I got the fame.
I'm a scammer.
>> All right, I got I got all of the uh I got everything uh working. We're all good. Uh but I give you I I need to give you one more introduction to um to uh QEL/ um John Stunja. Just so you know, he he isn't just um he isn't just a a horrible person. He's a chicken, too. Uh he's a little man in a tiny pond. And uh he he seems to me to lack anybody in his real life that respects him even a little, family included. That's my guess. My guess. Um, and so he he he plays online. He he's an actor online. Yeah, he plays a big tough guy online. Let me show you. Here is here is just last night. This is um Icy Spin was having a conversation with him.
I see Spin, you in the chat here. Um I see Spin was having a conversation with them, asking him for stuff. And of course, uh, as you'll see in the book, he has a script that he runs through and he he basically it's all just a way to avoid having any, uh, um, any things that he needs to support with evidence.
So, uh, Quantum Eraser after, uh, was demanding some some things and Icy Spin was giving it to him like, "You need an explanation. You don't know what an explanation is." And Icy Spin was sending him the definition of it.
Anyway, this this particular comment here took a long time for him to type.
And I see Spin being being a little little funny guy said, "Damn, you just spent 9 minutes typing that, bro. Come on. No wonder your books took so long."
Oh, and and so what does what does the little man Kiwi do with the little the little tough guy? He's like, "I had to go to the bathroom, Egypt, and contacting the server owner."
That's right. Because Icy Spin said, "It took you 9 minutes typing that, bro.
Come on. No wonder your book so took so long. But hurt little boy." It's like, I'm going to go tell the server owner that you said mean things to me. So, what happens? Yes, there it is. You, sir, popcorn doofus apparently is is uh the name that Kiwi gave gave him are a pretender [ __ ] of unimaginable proportions. Take the next 3 days off then quit. Okay, o. So he talked to the server owner to get him banned for 3 days.
And Icy Spin's like, "Oh, so cute. You responded but removed my perms." How manly are you, son? That's that's how manly that's how manly quantum eraser is not. He has no control, no respect in his real life, so he has to be the big boy online and go crying to the server owner on a Discord server when somebody jokes with him. You took 9 minutes. Oh, Quantum Eraser cried like a little [ __ ] What a [ __ ] There's no other word for it. It's just what it is. Oh, anyway, there's uh there it is.
Okay. Well, let's get to it here. Before we go, get your get your tab ready. Make sure you uh um drink your tab.
Um you're going to need it if you haven't had it yet. So, anyway, here we go. I copycake the I mean, [ __ ] isn't real. I It's It's on the edge.
It's on the edge. Um okay, let's get let's get this book here. Uh there it be. There's the book. Look at that.
That's the P1000 you're looking at. See that? You can see here, right? I got I super fancy. All right. Um anyway, he's got the Bolivia salt flats.
Hilarious. Later chapter gets into that.
Uh we won't see it today. Um anyway, my voyage.
Um so, quote the first the first sentence of John Stunga and Adam Beakin's book. Having just lost John Stunga, having just lost John Stuna's John Stunga's boyfriend, deadbeat boyfriend. John Stunja found himself suddenly open to new ideas and new adventures. Wait a second. Is that what he's talking about? Oh, wait. That's not even in focus. You want to see it focused? There you go. I don't run There we go. I don't run autofocus on this cuz it hunts. Um Oh. Anyway, it it's it it's told from the uh p perspective of a um of Betty Van Vanvelson.
Um but uh note here it says this is a work of fiction right there. Hard to read.
This is a work of fiction. Let let me really just so you can see it here really good. This is a work of fiction.
That's right. Flat Earth is fiction. All right. Get back here.
All right.
Oh, hold on. My My uh I'm like, why am I hearing notifications? Cuz my computer's on. Hold on. I get uh I get notifications on my I got I got a lot of computers here. I got one, two, three, four, five.
Yeah, I got six computers here. Uh anyway, here we go. My voyage. Now, this I'm not going to go into too much chapter on this one here. Um uh because it's just an introduction to the idiots that are uh members of John uh John and Adam's uh crew um mostly.
But uh I will it this is absolutely hilarious. So this was written by John Stunga from the third person perspective of Betty von Vvelson I don't know but right here John penned this himself most likely in 2016 I first heard the dulit tones of quantum eraser that's right this is John Stungage Quantum Eraser talking about himself in the third person uh declaring that he has dulitones Um, I would both become accustomed to frustrated by his presentations were calm, respectful, and deeply reasoned.
None of those things can ever be accidentally uh accused of anything John Stunja has ever done. That's a deep lie.
Um, much like the serene, expansive tranquility evoked by his avatar of the Bolivian salt flats. And I'm like, what are you talking about? The expansive tranquility. Oh, it's this little thing in here. Sorry. This little this little thing in here, that's the you can't even see. This is his avatar and this tiny little thing here, that's that's the salt flats. Yeah. Anyway, he gets into the salt flats in a later book. It's terrible. It's so dumb.
Anyway, he explained the scientific method clearly and decisively, drawing a firm distinction between scientific evidence and pseudocience. Yes, because John Stunja really is the one who knows.
Uh, let me just make it clear. As of today, March 8th, 2026, no one has ever provided any evidence ever. Not one guest, not one prominent scientist, not one NASA representative ever has met the standard. What standard are you talking about? Well, the standard of uh here, can curvature be directly measured over distance? Of course, it can.
But he outlines in this book how how he rejects the evidence. This is the cornerstone of of how he does it is how to reject evidence. Because let's just make this clear.
There is no evidence for flat earth. And flatearthers after they've been around for a while figure this out. And so then how are they going to deal with the insurmountable problem of not having evidence for flat earth? Well, number one, you've they've they've got to never put themselves in a position where they are expected to support the the claim of flat earth. So if you go to Discord, a lot of the time on Discord, they're teaching each other how to not make claims so that they don't have to make uh provide evidence for it.
So that that's that's an important part of of how they do it, right? Not have not making claims and not having evidence for it. And so then all then since there is massive amounts of evidence for the globe, how do you do that? Well, the the simple case, the real basic case is to just know your way out of it. That doesn't work like that.
Um uh All right. I'm There we go. So, um the nuh-uh though doesn't work, right? It gets pretty embarrassing pretty quick if if you show somebody evidence and they're like, "Nuh-uh." it gets a little obvious that they just are completely dishonest. So, so they when they've been around for a while, they get to the point where like they need to invent a different way to reject evidence. And this here that we're going that we're going going over is chapter two of this book is how a a large group of flat-earthers reject evidence is by constructing this thing. So, that's what we're going to that's what we're going to showcase here. And so when they're like there isn't any evidence that's ever been presented. I'll show you why. But has there been uh curvature measured? Of course there has. Has axial rotation uh how is axial rotation proven? Of course.
Now once you start talking about proving things in the strict sense you've exited science.
Maybe maybe just how is there evidence for axial rotation? That would be a fair question. How does a vacuum exist next uh beside gas pressure without a container? Easy. What direct evidence confirms gravity as commonly described?
Easy. How is Earth's supposed 3,959 mi radius verified? Now, you can tell he's not a scientist because he do it in kilometers. 6,371 km.
Scientists do do work in metric for the most part. Um, what measurements place the sun 93 million miles away? many.
How is a presupposed molten iron core at the center of an assumed ball proven to generate a me the magnetic field? Well, again, he uses the word proven evidence for is is what a scientist would ask about. And how can any elevation angle be obtained from a curved lip baseline?
And that is a um false premise. It's a begging not a begging the question. It's a loaded question because we don't claim a perfect baseline, but they do. Anyway, um then he gets into uh just the different people, DJ, Laty Klene, the Adam Megan, which is uh the co-author of this book, and Brian's logic. Now, this is hilarious. I just had to point this out. Speaking of Brian's logic, Brian had been quietly exploring the flat earth question for many years before a path crossed.
He is a truly autodidactic scholar, self-taught, fiercely independent, and blessed with a mind that grasps a mind that grasps science complex subjects with a clarity that rivals any university professor. Oh my god, this is this is Brian's logic.
She's that it's not she, right? This is this is John and maybe Adam writing as if they are this this fictional character. Uh his breakdowns of Einstein's theories are legendary among us and his work on straight and level flight, time zones, and a host of other topics is both meticulous and deeply illuminating. Of all things, I don't know if anything more ridiculous is in this book than that paragraph right there. Brian's logic is a mind blisteringly stupid ignoramus.
That's the polite way to put it. Not kidding, not being mean. He That's what he is. Oh, man. Anyway. All right.
That's chapter one.
Take a break, people. have some tab.
Um, I'm I'm It has to be tongue and cheek.
It has to be. It has to be. Uh, Lori lat my gosh. Lauri Lor, I'm sorry.
Says Kiwi did not finish eighth grade. He confused it with the eighth crayon. Of course.
Uh, Jack Federer says, "Me thinks reading this book out loud should definitely be done in the stylings of Forest Gump to fully absorb the stupid."
That's a good idea. I don't know if I can properly get the Forest Gump, but um, maybe it can be done. Maybe we can have something done like uh like that.
Wouldn't that be funny if we had different people reading it?
Tim Davidson says, "I remember the first time I heard Illuminous Pooh's radio like voice."
If you don't know, Tim Davidson may or may not be Lord Illuminous Pooh. I see Spin says, "Hope Q accepts our invitation to come watch this." Oh, hello Kiwi. Hello.
It's hard to believe how much of a disgusting wimp you are, Kuey. You are you are a sad, pathetic, tiny little man.
Um, oh my goodness. Brenda says, "We should ask Kiwi what his Roblox username is."
And Bug Sidebuster says, "You realize the forceful way you are flattening out the book damages it spine. You have greatly reduced its resale value." I know that um its resale value went from from negative $1,000 to negative $1,01.
Uh oh, what?
Also known as Oh, hold on.
Astroate says also known as space comma the book.
That's That's good. But you you actually put Look at that. You put the the the comma right there. You put the comma before the space. You got good job. Um All right. All right. Are you Are you ready? Are you ready for chapter two?
Thi this is here this is the most important um part of the book really.
All the rest is just an uh an actually like a ridiculous reversal of everything. Um so I'm not going to read all of it, right? But um so so remember now this is this is um the fictional character having being written by I'm just going to say John instead of John and or Adam.
I don't know who penned this mostly. I'm just going to say John. And and if it wasn't John, then I don't care. So, as I reflect on those early days in the autumn of 2014 when I first found myself drawn into the discussions about the shape of the earth, I remember how globe believers would constantly proclaim from their online platform, "In order for you to believe in a flat earth, you must deny all of science and physics." And this is true. This is 100% true. But wait, how is this book going to to recover from that? What is John going to do to pull this back around? Because that's 100% true. That absolutely. Well, he's going to use a different definition of science than everybody else. This chapter is his mangling, his bastardization of science.
Uh these declar those declarations left me thoughtful, not swayed by their intensity, but genuinely curious about what science really is. And of course, this is a problem. Science education is is uh is lacking. And and typically how you do science is the first chapter of a science book, right? You're you're just getting going on it. And it's just it's kind of the dry introduction to science.
It's not it's not really taught aggressively and thoroughly. It's just okay, here's here's the the first stuff, the the introduction. Before we get into the good stuff, we got to tell you this stuff. That's what it typically is done as. You grab any science book that's not like, you know, a university level, and that's what you get.
Oh, Caitlyn.
And of course, no doubt it's it's littered littered throughout here, but but uh Astroate says uh right here, um no Flurf knows how to use an M dash.
It's AI. Of course it is. Of course it is.
Look, look.
Uh right there. And that is an M dash.
If you don't know the difference between an M dash and an N dash, then you don't have a typography background. That's fine.
There's another one there. Another one there. Right. This is it's it's almost impossible to get AI to not put M dashes in.
Um for for it's just it's weird. Okay. Oh, for reference, this is an M dash. These are N dashes.
The letter after M dashes. And what's the difference? The difference is how wide they are. An M dash is the size, the width of an M in that font. And an N dash is the width of an N in that font.
Now, this is an N dash laser focus, but that's probably also because it's AI. AI knows the difference between M dash and N dash. Flurps don't.
Um, okay.
It was through my conversation with John. A conversation that didn't happen because this person is fictional. So, uh, their mantra, deny flat earth or deny all science, is a farce. A category error paddled by indoctrinated minds who'd flunk third grade intro to general science. There is no third grade intro to general science. General science is going to be about middle school, of course. Um, and I know this because I've homeschooled my kids.
I've uh graduated multiple kids. I've gone through the entire science curriculum with with multiple kids. I know I know what when science is taught.
Uh physical science is is the middle school typically when you'd get the here's how you do science part of it. And even that is is cursory.
Um but uh no John, you're wrong. You don't know this. You just made it up. Uh but you'll see later. All right. uh earthshaped flat spherical is a matter of existence a what is question not a causal phenomenon notice this this causal thing here right he he focuses on this and I'll highlight this more as he does it um science is a laser focus on the physical and natural world on how and why phenomenon occur not on concrete nouns nor static descriptors like shape really okay okay Well, that brings up a good point, right? John is saying that science cannot determine shape.
That's what he's saying. So, accept that for a second. How do you determine shape?
Non-science.
How do you determine shape?
What is it that you, John, accept to determine shape when you concluded Earth flat?
Right.
Uh, oh my god.
Shedzy49 says, "Resale value for that book is for fire starters."
Pab 73 for 300 Uruguayan pesos says, "This book is a pat on their own back.
It's a mind stavation."
It is. It is. Cuz cuz who's going to buy this? Who's going to buy this? only fans of John and and and uh Adam. That's it.
Right. The the market for this is tiny.
And this is super interesting in the the the fallout between John Kiwi and Adam Eeken and Nathan Oakley who's nearing publishing his book. They had this big argument about who owned the book. And one of them I think I think uh QE said he only wanted to get royalties on the book after $250,000 in sales.
Did they actually think that there might be $250,000 in sales on a book that costs I don't know how much uh they were thinking the book was going to be sold because uh the one that um Nathan Oakley is going to sell is probably going to be priced higher. And if it's much higher than this, I'm not buying it the paper version. Um I'll just wait for some flirt to send me the uh the link like happened already for this one.
Seriously, $250,000 was when was when John said, "I want the royalties to kick in for me."
Meaning he thought it would have that much sales. That's That's no kidding. No kidding. Um 69. Sav says, "I laughed so much my artist joined in two."
Boston Gazer says, "Love the brick separator as a pointer." Oh, yeah.
That's That's the best pointer around, isn't it? Tim Davis says, "Follow the bouncy Lego separator." I keep this on my desk. I I've I've always Well, yeah, since I I've I do Legos sometimes on live streams. I haven't for a while. Um, but I've that's it. Just sits on my desk.
So, let's see. Gay fruit basket.
Such a It's a good good It's so appropriate. Says, "You need a red pen.
Grade it like an English teacher." Oh, I don't even have a red. I do somewhere.
I don't know. It's It's I don't have it handy. So, good idea. I'll get it for the next one.
Unfornicated says, "Listening to QE and Adam driveth up each other through a fictional female character is unnerving.
Remember remember the beginning. This is a work of fiction."
That's I mean, yes, that is this is this is those two guys. They've constructed this fictional female like who's lonely.
John and Adam are lonely. Oh yeah. Um Connell Silverfur, haven't seen you for a while. Welcome. Says, "A major problem for the Flurman. A recent court ruling determined that only products of human imagination can be protected by copyright. That means their book AI slop is free game.
Is that the case?
Huh? I Yeah, I don't know. It's difficult to, you know, in a in a court.
I don't know. I don't care. I've got I've got this copy. I can do with it as I please. Um and uh some flurfs have been linking around the the uh the PDF of it, so whatever. Oh, somebody timing somebody out here. Hold on a second.
Just a second. I I always I see a timeout. I just want to make sure it's not something for that shouldn't be shouldn't be timed out. Um live chat down. Oh, I know this one. Downward direction says says, "Oh, great. The Arwin Stalker is here. Who's the Arwin Stalker?
Oh, there. Uh, another Nobody should buy it. People should be buying Oakley's book when it comes out.
The real source of this information. Oh, bless the real s. Look. Oh, yeah. Instead of going to this garbage dump, go to that garbage dump to get your information.
Brilliant. All right. Now, I don't know why. All right. Hold on. None of this was was timeoutable.
Don't pay attentious garbage if you really want it. It's not hard to find losers. Okay, that's you that you don't need to time out for that. All right, hold on. I'll do this. Uh, don't don't abuse this. Oh, I got to do it over on this channel. Don't abuse it downward direction. Um, and if you and if you do stupid things, they'll take away your wrench. But there's a wrench so people don't time you out. I don't know. Roger that. Why you But anyway, doesn't matter. He He He didn't go there, so he can He's fine. He's fine.
Um All right.
Connell Silverfur, thank you for that.
Unfortunicated says, "I call dibs on the start of chapter 7, Sea Sparrow." Tell you what, well, when I get to it, let's uh let's both be uh let's let's collab on that one. We got Jim Daniels says, "Amazon has two global ratings."
Yeah. So, after tonight, you all could uh could go on Amazon and uh review it.
Tell it what you think. All right. Uh last one for right now. Extraj says, "If not voiced as Forest Gump, perhaps Nathan Explosion from Met Metalopol Metalocalypse instead." Look him up if need be. Nathan Explosion.
There we go. Who can Who wants to do that one? That sounds That sounds amazing. Okay, back to back to the cornerstone of how of how uh this tribe of flurfs rejects all evidence.
Um all right, remember causal he's talking causal here. Um so now he goes to this he's citation from Wikipedia. Pseudocientists pseudocience consists of statements, beliefs or p practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.
So that I can agree with.
But what is the scientific method of course is what he's going to be answering here. Uh the term science has been hijacked and twisted to prop up narratives that collapse under for mica deep scrutiny. natural science as I learned a as now who this is whose voice is this is this Kiwi's voice or is this the fictional character's voice is an empirical fortress built on the unyielding foundation of the scientific method a process that proves no natural cause and effect relationship see that. See, this is this is quantum eraser through the voice that he's he's fabricated here feeding in that same cause and effect thing. He's he's requiring everything in science to be only cause and effect.
That's it. Nothing else is accepted. The scientific method. So, here's another citation. And scientific method distinguishes science from other forms of explanation because it because of the requirement of systematic experimentation, right? Requires experiment. Again, now remember QE has has already he's already introducing the cause and effect necessity of experiments. That's the only scope of experiments. See, he's rescoping.
He's rescoping experiment. Physics and natural sciences is in general is a reasonable enterprise based on valid.
Look look at this this right here. Look look at this this uh justification here. It's full justification but not enough words. You get all these these these big gaps here.
Terrible. Ter who who what editor would allow this? No editor would allow this.
This is terrible.
There was no editor. Uh experimental evidence. So again, he he's he's redefining experiment as he's going through this criticism and rational discussion. It provides us with knowledge of the physical world and and it is experiment.
See, he's these capitalization are just him. It is experiment that provides the evidence that grounds the knowledge.
Okay? He's building this case. The king and queen of natural science are experiment and hypothesis.
I this is true.
But he's again bastardized these to dismantle the globe narrative.
He's he has stated his conclusion, right? He's stated the goal here. He's he's got this fabrication of trying to be like neutral third party like in this fictional character, but he he leaks through his only intention here right here is to dismantle the globe narrative. That's all he's trying to do.
We must first bow to the king of the scientific method. Dismantle the globe narrative.
Chair and professor of physics at Yale.
Uh Ramai Shank Shanker puts it bluntly.
The only things the only way things change in physics is experiments. Yep.
Everything is based on experiment.
That's the only way we change our mind.
Absolutely.
experiment. This is back to his voice.
Experiment is the ultimate arbiter of truth in natural science. The crucible where hypothesis hypotheses are tested out and either forged into knowledge or shattered into dust. I think I keep missing that the bottom. I have it hanging off the edge here, but I'll I'll try to remember to have it here for you. The final arbiter in science is the experiment. See that?
So he's he's he's he's correctly identified that experiment is important is is absolutely fundamental in science and I agree and so does Richard Fineman when he said um how to do an experiment first you guess then then you get a hypothesis and you compute the consequences of that hypothesis and you compare it to observation or experiment or or reality or nature and if it's and if the computation is doesn't match the observation, then it's wrong. Right? That that's how simple he put it. And that truly is all the the the framework that we need for how to do an experiment. But QE can't allow that because that allows you to actually determine the shape of the Earth accurately. He can't allow that.
Anyway, now back to back to his fictional voice right here. Now, experiments do not spring from the void.
They demand the queen of the scientific method.
First, a scientific hypothesis, a precise prediction, a prediction.
What prediction does flat earth provide?
Well, he never does that about how an independent variable, the cause.
Remember, he's he's all he's always pushing this this redefinition. It's a slow process, right? He he's building it in. peppers it at the beginning, puts little in the middle, putting it in the end. He's in he's deceiving the mind of the reader here.
Um the the independent variable affects a dependent variable. Caltech phys physicist Sean Carroll, great physicist who does not agree with quantum eraser at all. Uh hypotheses aren't simply useful tools in some potentially outmoded version vision of science. They are the whole point. Yes. A a hypothesis.
What hypothesis for flat earth has been has successfully uh survived a uh falsification test?
I I don't know of any since the whole point of natural science is hypothesis.
What is a scientific hypothesis? Let the cherrypicking begin.
Scientific hypothesis is a special kind of prediction that forecasts how the independent variable will affect the dependent variable. That's correct. But remember, he has peppered in what independent variable and dependent variable mean, right? This is a quote, so he couldn't put it in parentheses cause and effect, right? He couldn't because it's a quote. He wants it to, but he's already he's already primed the mind of the reader here. A valid hypothesis, says geocscientist Christine Mlelen explains, forecast a testable relationship. I've sent her an email.
she does not agree with him. Um the hypothesis should also contain a prediction about his verifiability. It should for example the hypo if the hypothesis is true then one should happen when two is manipulated. Yes indeed the first blank is a dependent variable. It depends on what you're doing. Sorry. So this is um still her quote. It depends on what you're doing.
And in the second blank and the second blank is is the dependent variable. You manipulate it to get the reaction. There should be no other variables in the experiment that may affect the dependent variable. Now, this says should the reality is that that that it's difficult to get a this to actually happen because let's say you're doing some sort of a uh testing how well something can store heat.
All right? Well, time is a dependent variable or an independent variable, right? You can't you can't not have time happen. So if you're like I want to test different materials to see to see their uh insulating properties. Well time matters. You don't get to stop it. You can change your primary independent variable the insulator but the other independent variable time always happens. You can't get rid of it.
All right, we have just one more citation for a bit of overkill. John would do that a lot.
Seriously, John's writing this himself.
He's having this this lady fawn over him. Get your hand out of your pants there, John.
He's he's manufactured a woman that's just enthralled by his amazing brain.
Um, use three use three citations where one was often sufficient to settle the point. All right. Formalized hypotheses contain two variables. One is independent, the other is dependent.
Remember, there's two. Remember two. I want you I want you to two. Is this a hardf fast rule, John? Is it a hard fast rule? It is not. Uh, he's going to first law flur himself for a minute. One is independent, the other dependent. The independent is the only one. The science is the one you the scientist control and the dependent variable is the one that you observe and or measure the results.
Notice if there are two parts of a formalized hypothesis. The if portion contains the testable proposed relationship and the then is the predicted expected results from an experiment. If then is a fantastic way to structure a hypothesis. Now, if you go on to his show, then wait, if you go on to his show and propose a hypothesis in an if then format, then Quantum Eraser and Nathan Oakley will yell at you and overtalk you and mute you because they won't allow that.
But it's right here in his book. He he he never mind this later. he he's not going to want you to to remember that.
Um, an acceptable hypothesis contains both aspects, not just the prediction portion. I completely agree.
What kind of if then statements can we construct about about things? Well, if the earth is flat with the sun circling overhead all the time, then the sun could never cross the horizon.
There we go. There's an if then. Uh if the Earth is a globe, then as you increase your elevation, the angle to the horizon will will go lower and lower. There's an if then. Hey, very nice. If the Earth is flat, what else? What else could we do then?
Distant objects across water could never have their bottoms obstructed by the surface of the water.
That's a great if then statement. Um if the Earth is a globe, then celestial navigation would only work using the globe. There's a good one. If the Earth is flat, then celestial navigation would only work using flat geometry. That's another if then, right? You we could sit around all day putting together if then.
Every single one of them according to the citation that he just put in there is a valid hypothesis.
All of them are science. according to that quote from California State University.
Um, and this is this is an interesting thing that that he always does.
Let me let me show you this.
This is this is a bit of an appeal to authority here because it says California State University, right? You see that right there? California State University. But what is it actually? Oh, it's actually this teacher, right? It's his it's his notes, right? It's just his notes. Now, I'm not saying that it's not acceptable to use the guy's notes, right? But but he's using something that isn't part of a published paper or it wasn't through a science book that's been reviewed by by editors. this is just part of a guy's notes that's for a class, right? And and so he likes to use that because people are are less formal in that type of writing and so they get a little less um rigorous in what they're talking about. He loves that because then he gets to uh he gets to leverage that uh because they're not as as uh rigorous in the writing anyway.
Okay. So here we go. Now let's take now.
So now let's look at both the king and the queen working together. Oh, so eloquent. Every experiment, as Penn State University notes, requires three types of variables, independent, dependent, and controlled. Wait a second. This says only two.
Well, which one is it? Which one is it, John?
Both. The answer is both. The answer is really this one. because every experiment has the potential for confounding variables and so you need need to control the confounding variables then it's a controlled variable. Now this is this is a critical part of what flat-earthers can't ever uh touch and when we get into later parts of this book.
The reason why the reason why all of the stuff is is uh is rejected as a way of of you can't he won't allow uh experiments for the globe to be called experiments because then you or globe or flat right because then you need to have also independent dependent and control variables and what we know one thing for certain flatearthers cannot do a controlled experiment. But refraction causes changes in what you see through the air.
There's there's no question about that.
But they don't want to ever take that into account. You need to have controlled variables. When you do the black swan, John, the black swan has no controlled variable. But John thinks that's okay because John doesn't call that an experiment.
But it is the black swan is a perfectly finely constructed experiment completely matching these this here all this stuff he's talking about the black swan that he talks about perfectly matches ex say for one thing no control variables and that's why he won't allow it to be called an experiment because as soon as he calls it an experiment then you say you didn't control for confounding variables he said Oh, it's not an experiment. It's never he doesn't want to call it an experiment.
Right. This is this is all this big deception that he's put together. He is intentionally deceiving people. Right.
Why? Why? Why? Why?
We know why Nathan Oakley does it.
Because he's broke as hell, right? And and he's looking he's looking to make money. It is Nathan Oakley's rice bowl.
Flat Earth is his rice bowl. If flat Earth is no more, then he has no more rice bowl and he'll have to go get a job. And if anybody Googles Nathan Oakley, they're going to find out that he's a disgusting, horrible, awful human. Now, Quantum Eraser appears to have some sort of income. I can't imagine if he ever needs to go and apply for a job again, well, it might not go well because people might Google his name, right? So maybe he could go work at Arby's, but I don't think any professional job uh when John Stunja shows up and puts in his name on the resume and they Google his name or they're going to show up and find out, wow, what a disgusting, horrible person he is. And I I I hate playing any of his stuff because I want this show to be family friendly. And nothing about what John Stunja ever does is familyfriendly, the good faux Christian that he is.
So anyway, why is John stunned doing it? So Oakley we know is for money. Why John? Because he's a little man with no power in real life, no respect in real life.
And he goes online because in his tiny little pond, John's Tundra is the big tough guy. He can go to the owner of the Discord server and ask that owner to mute somebody for saying mean words to him. That's how powerful he is in that tiny little pond.
No power in real life. That's what I think is John Stung's motivation for this stuff here. I don't think he's going to make any money on this. I I think he knows he's not going to make money on this. Uh he probably hopes he's going to make money, but he's not.
Anyway, okay, back to this. The independent variable is the supposed cause. Now, here we go. This is back to this isn't a citation. This is back to John writing as the third party, right? John writing as the third party.
He's building the narrative of his narrow version of cause effect right there. This isn't a quote, right? He goes quote quote quote not quote. Oh, but it is sort of a quote. This is somebody not John that's saying this.
Except is John's saying this. Uh anyway, the dependent variable is the observed effect while controlled constant variables ensure the experiment's purity. Without these, no hypothesis can even be constructed, let alone tested.
Consequently, no science can be done in natural science. Still in his voice, the independent variable is the supposed cause and the dependent variable the effect of the observed natural phenomena. So, let me ask you this. Can you say can we can we construct an experiment this way? We're going to test to see whether or not the Earth is tilted and a a tilted globe. And we're going to vary our independent variable, which is our location on the surface of the Earth, and go to Antarctica in December.
And then we will see the dependent variable, which will be whether or not the sun is up above the horizon moving right to left the whole time, or if it's doing whatever flat Earth predicts. Who knows what that is? No flat earther can actually predict it. But uh uh if you apply the geometry, the sun should of course never set, but it should always be north somewhere north. It should never be south and it should move like this, right? Because you're outside the loop of where it's going. So it should be going around like this. But what we saw was that the sun went this way, right, when I went there myself and I tested the OB the the experiment. So my independent variable was the location.
And so now now here's what here's what the deceiving flatearther says.
You moving to uh flying to um Antarctica didn't cause the sun to move.
That's not the cause and effect that that scientists talk about when they talk about the cause and effect. That's not what Right. I moved my position to Antarctica and the effect was that the sun did some particular motion.
I didn't cause the sun to make that motion, right? That's where that's the deception that they're working on. I didn't cause that. But they think they they want that to be what it has to be.
No scientist thinks this. This isn't any part of science that's ever happened ever. No scientist has ever reread a paper from some other scientist and said wait a second this thing you didn't cause that thing to happen right when when that when that effect right you when you added this material to this to this beaker you didn't cause the reaction you didn't c the the right the the reagents mixed and then because they mixed something happened you didn't cause that the reagents did that, right?
They they they get into this hyper narrow version of it. It's it's and it's useful for idiots that don't understand what they're trying to do.
And remember that they they work them into it. This and this book is a great example of how they're working it in slowly, right? Going back into the cause and effect always by impressing this. So anyway, let's apply that rigor to the globe believer. Sacred is the earth, the globe. They proclaimed the globe shape the earth is a scientific fact demanding allegiance to all of science and physics. Now let us slice through this paper thin veneer of pseudocientific rhetoric with the blade of the scientific method. This is this is pure quantum eraser's voice here. Uh the first step is to observe a natural phenomena. Where's that citation?
Is that what all scientists say is the absolute uh rigorous dogmatic version of the scientific method? No.
No. Richard Fineman said, "First you guess." Quote, "First you guess." The audience laughs. He says, "No, you really guess." That's what he said.
How you get your hypothesis doesn't matter.
Any way is possible. You can have a dream.
You can you can imagine a snake eating out its own tail. And then your hypothesis can be maybe that's the structure of the benzene molecule. Six carbons in a circle like a snake eating its tail. How did that happen? Did he observe a natural phenomenon? He did not. He had a dream.
And then what caused it? Don't know.
Doesn't matter.
He went he went and tested it. And guess what? That was that was what it was found. Is that an experiment? 100% that's an experiment. No scientist will say that's not an experiment because he didn't he didn't determine the cause of it being in that ring. Not not how it's done.
Um.
All right.
So, uh, a a measurable effect in the physical world. A globe is a concrete noun, a descriptor of shape, not a phenomenon. It is also what? It is also a what is question not a how or why question of cause and effect. Still cause and effect. The question of globe lies in pure geometry is more than that though it lies in in uh reality not physics or natural science. Shapes are measured. Oh shapes are measured.
Quantum eraser. Shapes are measured.
Good news. The shape of the earth has been measured.
It's a globe. That's what the measurements all say.
If that's actually what you are honestly saying, then congratulations. We've determined that the Earth is a globe by measuring its shape. And if that's where you're at, I'm with you 100%.
We've measured the shape of the globe of the Earth. It's a globe. The radius 6,371 kilometers approximately is is the outcome of that in every measurement of the radius of the of that of the earth right of the globe.
Not only that but but the precision by which the shape of the earth and and is uh is even more precise than that that we know that there's about 22 24 km variation in the polar uh radius than the equatorial radius because it's been measured. If that's all you need if you're an actual honest investigator that's been done. We've determined the shape of the earth through measurement. Okay, but anyway, he goes but he goes on for a shape of no measurement applies. Okay, done. Earth is a globe. We've measured it. The globe believers error is a category error of epic proportions. Is not but fine. If that's the case, we're we're there. uh their confrontation of mantra deny flat earth or denial of science is a pathetic slight of hand blunder that that would fail a child's science fair it's not just wrong it's hijacking of science good name all to prop up a crumbling ball well that's not of course none of that's true there about about what science is but this is critical if if you take we're done the rest of this book doesn't matter because the rest of this book doesn't have measurements that that support flat none of None of these measurements support flat in the rest of the book. Every measurement ever done for the shape of the earth is globe. Everyone.
All right, I'm going keep going here.
Um, blah blah blah blah blah. All right, here we go. This is important. Here we go.
The Global Believer's House of Cards rests on fields they call science, astronomy, cosmology, astrophysics, and more.
During his time in many a debate forum, I would often noticed John lay a trap.
Again, John wrote this around this misnomer asking them the question, is there any evidence of a single viable scientific hypothesis in any of the fields of astronomy, cosmology, or astrophysics?
Um, yes. But remember, he has he has bastardized scientific hypothesis, right? So, uh, and look at this. Um, where where are these at?
Many a debate arena. What debate arena?
What debate arena? Discord where he can where he can mute people, where he can overtalk people, where he has mod privileges, where if they talk, he can just block them or overtalk them. He'd just belligerently uh talk over them.
That's not debate. And it's and it's a place where he has control, of course.
And if you want to debate him anywhere else, he runs away from it. How does he do that? By demanding that you prepay him $10,000.
Why? Why would anybody prepay you $10,000, right?
Is is he does he command that sort of a fee? And does he have a history of getting No, he does not. Um, it is a coward.
It is one of the cowards live debate defenses.
I'll show you here.
We got coward live debate defense right here.
This is mc2.net/cowardsdefense.
Uh, what what do you do? Well, of course, quantum eraser blocks. Um, there is no debate is something you get from some of Oakley's crew. Someone else already demolished the challenger.
Demand a consens consens consension in order to debate. You're a shill. Pay me right here. Pay me. Why would anyone pay you to participate? Are you able to demand money for appearances on this topic? Did you accomplish something giving you major notoriety or I mean, I wrote this years ago. Are you a small fish in a smaller pond? Yes, quantum eraser is a small fish in a smaller pond. The coward knows. The coward quantum eraser knows there's no value in paying them, so nobody would pay them.
Easy escape.
All right. A scientific hypothesis demands a testable relationship between an independent variable. Okay. This is John writing again. cause and a dependent variable effect validated by experiment. Fields like paleontology, archaeology, anthrop anthropology, geology, and evolutionary biology fail this demand. Without the time, without a time machine, you can't observe past phenomena and test hypotheses. They're dependent variables. Fossils, artifacts, ancient are static relics, not dynamic effects. Really?
Where's your control variables? Um, so he has rejected all of a astronomy.
He's rejected astronomy.
Does that make any sense? He he doesn't think that astronomy is a science. Well, uh, that is of course not the case. But let me let me show you. Let me show you.
So, not only is astronomy a proper science, it's considered to be the first science. So, mc2.net or no, this is this is on uh this is on the flurf wiki. I'll uh I'll drop it in here for you.
I I just I put I put this together quick to um just a bunch of citations and I did check them. Astronomy wisely regarded as the oldest of the natural sciences. Now whether it's the oldest or not, some people think other things may be. It doesn't matter. Scientists agree that astronomy is a science. And certainly astronomers think that it's a science. Systematic observation of the sky for calendars, seasons, navigation, and the ritual purposes predate written records and other formalized disciplines across many ancient cultures.
Um, in the 2020 article on astronomy, initially a cosmic curiosity of the night sky was eventually decoded by ancient peoples making astronomy one of, if not the oldest science.
Citation provided there. Views consistent. 1980 Nobel laurate.
Astronomy is the oldest of the sciences.
It goes back to the some of the first civilizations. 99 university tutorial.
Astronomy is the oldest of the sciences in 2023.
Uh Chris Impy, science is the astronomy is the oldest science. Wikipedia article, astronomy is one of the oldest natural sciences.
Uh anyway, then I give you a little a list here. 1st century BCE.
Astronomy, however, is the most ancient of all the sciences and the most necessary for the conduct of life.
Plenty the Elder, the science of stars, which is the most ancient of all, uh, Tommy of all the sciences, astronomy is the most beautiful and most worthy.
Right? You see this? The 7th century, uh, medicine is second only to the study of the heavens, being the science of great antiquity.
1543, Capernicus, among the many varied literary and artistic studies. I think that those should be especially cherished are the which concerning the things that are very beautiful such as the science of astronomy.
All right, I won't continue. You can you can uh read read on your own. It goes on and on. People after people after for centuries have been saying astronomy is a science.
So what we've got here is we've got basically the whole of the people that do science saying astronomy is science.
And on the other hand, you've got somebody that has not done science, saying it's not a science. Now, this is not an appeal to authority or an appeal to consensus or appeal to popularity.
This is experts in their field and they get to say I'm not appealing to any f facious thing to go to an expert. These are the people that do science including astronomers who are scientists.
They all say astronomy is a science.
So either everybody's wrong and and John Stunga who's never done science is right or John Stunja doesn't understand the topic.
Does does the version of science that John Stunja purports have any value?
Can you actually do anything with the version of science that he claims?
We shall see. We shall see what what uh what he does. Anyway, um Oh, this is this is amazing. Theoretical physics affairs no better. It relies on mathematical models, not experiments.
You're right. But but theoretical science is just part uh theoretical physics is a branch of physics that employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects. Oh, hold on. I'm not I'm not showing it. I'm sorry.
uh physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomenon. This is in contrast to experimental physics which uses experimental tools to probe these phenomena. Uh and he gave a citation Wikipedia read the next sentence on wiki I wrote to myself.
Well, I happen to have it ready to go here.
Um, here it is. Theoretical physics, Wikipedia. He got the quote correct. The next sentence, the advantageous the advancement of science generally depends on the interplay between experimental study and theory.
Here's what happens.
In theoretical physics, the hypothesis is produced.
In experimental physics, the hypothesis is tested.
That's what happens.
So theoretical physics isn't something all of its own.
It's partnered with the experiment. So yes, all alone it isn't. But you haven't you haven't identified anything useful.
You've just shown that all you're trying to do is cherrypick.
Anyway, all right. Little more. Uh, take the claim that Earth's rotation causes stars to appear to move from east to west. The independent variable Earth's rotation can't be manipulated. That's not the claim. You need to stop the Earth rotating to be able to scientifically test it. No, you don't.
Time is the independent variable.
Time is the independent variable in this in this instance. And you will find to no surprise that this crew, this this cult, this version of the cult of flat earth rejects time as an IV, even though time is an IV in almost absolute every experiment at at all.
Read read the chapter 2 or three of high school physics by OpenStacks.
It says in there, time is almost always the independent variable.
Oh, bless. He's He's such a He's such a turd. He's such a turd. Anyway, all right. He goes back. He's cherrypicking these things. Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn't a science. A basic tenant of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can't do that in cosmology. Now, the citation, the citation is really funny. So, I looked this up. You could look it up, too, if you want. Let's see here.
The citation is Jay Gun.
Jay Gun cited by Adrien Show in this in this article here. How odd is our universe? Wait a second. Why not just get the original citation instead of somebody else citing it?
That's weird. That's weird. Why not? Why not? So I I found the original citation.
Yeah, he said that, right? But but go read go read his interview where somebody asked him about this and find out what he said about this. You'll find out that he doesn't agree with Nate with uh with uh John Stunga here. Anyway, uh more cherry-picking here by astronomer and astronomer Nick Strobble concurs. Unlike other sciences, astronomy is entirely observational. Yes, you cannot run experiments on things. You cannot manipulate the objects to see how they work. It's an observational um science.
That's still a science.
None none of that none of that actually contradicts the fact that astronomy is a science anyway. Um earth shape flatter spherical depends demands measurement not manipulation which of course we've done. There you go.
There there is there is oh there is quantum erasers treaties on how to reject science. So after going through all of that that super rigorous thing the only thing you can identify is cause and effect and you have to have this rigorous um what's the naturally observed phenomenon you have to do every time right and if you if you can't identify that then out it goes before you even get into the hypothesis. That's what they do when when you when you cite something like, "Oh, what was a naturally observed phenomenon?" as if that's what scientists do when they have conversations about experiments. That's not what scientists do. Then like what's the IV and DV and and then they've treat they've trained themselves on how to reject anything at all by just by just handwaving away anything that that isn't um that they don't want. Right? That's not IV. That's not DV. And if there's two independent variables, well, out.
They throw it out. Right? Never do they concern themselves with control variables, with controlling for confounding variables. They don't care about that, right? In their own stuff.
But, um, all right. Do you want me to go through chapter 2 on gravity or chapter three on gravity tonight? We'll see. Uh, Astrocate says, "Here's a suggestion.
while reading. Replace each m dash with a space comma while reading. Space comma.
It's a good idea. I think it's a mix looking at this. I think it's a mix of of AI generated stuff and John spouting, you know, self arandizing nonsense.
Um they they certainly uh rushed it out once uh once it became a race between them and Nathan Oakley to publish. Tim Davidson says, "We I've always wanted a woman to want me for my brain and not just my body." Wait, why are you guys laughing?
Gay gay fruit basket again says, "If you go on a Discord VC at 3:00 a.m. and say Earth is round, a scary creature called Nathan Oakley will appear and yell at you."
Yep.
Tim Davis is again says, "Every time you say Kiwi's uh is real name, you get John and the syllable s out of my brain."
Says Stamos. John Stamos.
John Stunga.
Yeah, John Stamos is Yeah, I'll take John Stamos. John Stunja. Turd. Turd.
Turd. Wrangler.
Um, melodic lyrics says, "I kept laughing from URLs as citations. The formatting the part where a sentence just stops to the Earth's radiuses needed for C book about as dense as a cloud between pictures and quotes. Um, yeah, I assume you've you've you've looked at it.
Uh, um, it it is it is if you've seen any of his his uh website stuff or his little PowerPoint presentations that he does or I think they're they're Microsoft Word.
Um, it it's childish, right? It couldn't be any more ridiculous if it was in Crayon. It's basically crayon.
Um, and and the this book is is really not much different. Uh, right. The the format of of of a book, you know, that's not color, right? The the text isn't colors, just black text on white. You can't he isn't doing the the giant oversized font that's red or other colors, right? But he does do some of it. Um, in let's see. Yeah.
Right. This this here, look at this here. I'll show you. Why am I putting it up on the screen like that?
Here's his his signature stuff. Right.
This is somebody's quote, right? So, why is he capitalizing these words? Why is he capitalizing all these words? That's that's John Stuna. That's quantum eraser stuff here, right? This stuff here, these these capitalizations weren't in there, right? The the bold text, that's not in there. This is and this isn't this isn't speaking as the third party. This is a quote. This is a quote. You don't do that in a quote, right? Look at that. It's like a child, but it's inconsistent because here's a quote uh right here where he doesn't do it. Well, here's a quote where he does do it. Here's a quote where he does not do it. It's all over the place. And yes, this is his citation.
CSF.col uh colostate.edu resources hypothesis hashtag colon-ext.
Oh my gosh. It's just so that if you click this link, which of course you can't click it on a paper version of a book, hypothesis is Oh my gosh. It's just the It's just the text here.
The Oh, that's not It's not how you do it. That's not how you do it. Anyway, and he he constantly puts objection, your honor. No experiment, no science.
Remember, all of this is is just how to reject uh science. That's all it is. But yeah, URLs and citations ridiculous. Connell Silver says, "Tune DD, who's DD? Is that is that the flur?" Downirection is abusing wrench and spamming links.
Uh like are they are they like links to stupid stuff?
Like if if it's like here's a here's a link to some derpy video. Um I don't care.
Well, I don't want that, right? Just just links to videos I don't need. But if he's What links or is is he spamming?
Uh Eric Burns, an astronomer, says I can vouch for astronomy being a science.
Yes.
Uh okay, here. Connell server first said that. So some must be Icy Spin. All right. So Icy Spin is a managing moderator. Um exactly. Who cares? Wait, who cares who so did here? Filebin.net.
I'll open that.
Oh, that's the PDF.
All right. So, we've got we've got the uh we've got the flatty here downward direction.
Uh I wonder which Glob pirated Quantum Erasers book. I guess if we give him a little credit, it's not piracy was stolen first place. Um anyway, down direction is spamming the link to the book. Awesome. And of course, down downward direction is a flatty spamming the link to the book. Good job. Well, if anybody wants it, uh, can I can I pin Hold on.
I'm going to pin the deleted message. I don't think I can. If you post it again, I'll pin it. Downward direction.
Post his link again. I'll link I'll pin it.
Does it let me pin the message that was deleted? It doesn't. All right. Well, you'll have to you'll have to do it again. I'll pin it this time.
That's if you see Look, it's a flat earther posting links to the book.
All right. Quantum Eraser. Go take it out on down direct downward direction.
Uh Oh, yeah. All right.
Good good idea. I I'll grab the uh I'll grab the link downward direction. And if you post it, I'll link I'll uh I will uh There it is. I'll pin your comment instead of mine.
I don't care. Oh, there it is. Beat me to it. All right. Don't delete that.
There you go. Flatties. Quantum Eraser.
Go get downward direction. He's posting your book.
I love the infighting.
Oh, bless their little hearts. Uh, all right.
Let me jump down here.
All right. So, where are we now? We've we've gone been through chapters one and two. Now, chapter three.
Now, remember, uh, I've only read about half half of three. So, tell you what, I'm going to not maybe read that one. um tell tales to the I've skimmed I obviously I've read what I've shown you already because I have um Oh yes, I love this because I've I've been underlining it and stuff. But this I'll give you a little a little tease here. Look at this.
This is this is the uh elevation angles, right? And um right uh flat-earthers can't do geometry but but what he's claiming here is he's saying that there is an object in the sky like a star. This is how they think celestial navigation works. And then there's the GP. That's the point on the surface of the earth directly underneath the star.
And and they're saying that this is how the elevation angle is is done. Now if that's the case, well, this is easy to test because look at that right here.
What is that word right there? That word right there is height. So if you know the distance between where you are and where the GP is, and the GP of every star is well known. It's easy to find out, right? It's in it's in the nautical almanac. And there's a a well well understood method been used for centuries to determine where the the GP of any uh star is that's in the catalog for any point of of any day. Right? And you've got and hypothesizing flat earth, right? You've got your angle here and you got your line of sight. So if you know this distance here and you know this angle, you know this angle. Well, that's that's through three points of a triangle. Three parts of the six six parts of a triangle. Um and you can solve the whole triangle. So then you'll know the height of the star. This is quantum eraser's diagram right here.
He is saying that that you can know the height of a star, right? Well, okay. Awesome. Let's test.
Let's test.
Hi, Kitty.
Let's see here.
All right.
So, my my debate on the Asylum Discord server from uh July of 2023 uh didn't didn't get too far, but let's let's do this. Okay. So, uh here I am in uh at 45° north latitude and I know my distance between myself um 45° north and the GP of the North Star, right? Because that's the North Pole approximately, right? Now, flat earthers generally don't even know. They're so dumb. They don't even generally know that that uh the North Pole that that this um Polaris isn't actually absolutely at the North Pole.
That's how dumb they are. Okay, so here we go. We've got the star here right now. Now I measured the angle myself and it's the same every time.
45 degrees. Amazing. 45 degrees. And how far am I from from the the North Pole?
Well, this being we're doing science 5,000 km.
So, back to the book here.
This is Quantum Eraser's book here.
triangle.
I constructed a triangle. I got the GP of the North Star right there. Right. I got the 5,000 km. Now, anybody that successfully completed uh middle school geometry, let's let's go high school geometry.
Let's go that can solve this triangle and know that according to Na to uh I want to say Nathan Oakley, but Nathan Oakley has the same thing here.
According to quantum eraser, there it is. The height of the North Star above the flatness is 5,000 km.
That's a mandatory thing that that's that's the measurement that that he says is what you do in in in order to determine things. You need measurements. This is a measurement that I did. I'd measured this. I measured this. You know what else I've measured?
I've measured this elevation of the north part north star from other locations.
I have I've done it in Florida at um 31 31 degrees.
I don't remember offh hand. Uh but but it it tracks with the latitude. So if you're at 31° north latitude, it's at it the the elevation of of Polaris is approximately 31°.
So we can do another triangle.
Simples simples, right? So, we got this other triangle here, the longer baseline from doesn't matter where, um, Florida to the North Pole.
Right now, we know we know the height of of the North Star is 5,000 km, and I've conveniently made that about 5 cm.
So there you go. Now we've got this right here. So I I'll I'll pre-label this 5,000 km. It has to be has to be 5,000 km because I've measured it.
And what did Quantum Eraser say about about measurements?
Let's let's review Quantum Eraser. What you said?
Um, you said a lot of crap. So, Earth shape Earth shape flat or spheroidal demands measurements, not manipulation.
All right.
30°.
What happens when you uh when you do this? Well, we know a couple things. We know this distance here is related to the latitude, which is 30° north, right? And what is what is Hold on. Let me get my Where's my calculator?
Uh it No, it's not there. I got to do I'll do it on the computer. Sorry, I don't have my uh my HP out. It's in the drawer.
So, we've got 111 uh kilometers per degree.
And this is how many degrees from the North Pole? Well, it's 60° north.
Now, you'll notice flat-earthers that 6,660 km is not actually 666.
It's 10 times as large as that. And it's also not the number of the beast. Uh, it's the number of Nero. Nero's the beast. Anyway, um so this distance here must be or we know this this is this is a fact fact 30° north latitude is 6,660 km from the north pole. This is a a measured fact. You don't get to dispute it. But what happens when we solve this triangle? Does this match?
Um, now we could I could I could bring out my uh my trigonometric um uh slide rule, but I'm a little I'm not going to be able to do it. Um I'm I'm pretty bad at that and and the numbers are a bit small and I need I need stronger glasses to read it actually and I don't have them uh on me right now. So, we're going to solve the triangle. We're going to plug in 5,000 km for that height. That's a in this right triangle solver. We're going to plug in the angle right here, which is right triangle. And then we're going to plug in this angle here, which is angle 230. All right.
And when we solve this triangle, this uh flat earth prediction.
Remember remember John Stunja wanted to really make a point that you can't have uh you have to have prediction.
You have to have prediction.
Uh let me see if I can find where it says that.
There it is.
Um, anyway, are you remembering when I read that? I can't find it at the moment.
Anyway, all right. Uh, just uh grab grab the the link by downward downward direction and you'll find where he says that. Hey, hey, puppy.
The cat. The cat is super noisy. Anyway, what is what is the prediction? Uh oh.
Flat Earth prediction.
We got a problem here.
We got a problem here. Quantum Eraser and flatearthers, I've used your method.
I've made a prediction using flat Earth.
It requires that distance to be 8,660 km, but reality is 6,660 km. You're 2,00 2,000 km off.
2,000 km off.
I've falsified flat earth. And I've used what you've outlined in this book, John Stenja, to falsify flat earth. I made a prediction using flat earth.
Now, John Stunga rejects that you you can make you can do experiments about the shape of the earth. Okay, fine. We measured it. It's a globe.
That's all I need, right? I don't need to detail how it was measured because it was measured, right? I don't know. He's he's unclear in here about how how you would then go about measuring the shape of the earth because the rest of the chapters aren't about measuring. None of them are about measuring. None of them are. In fact, the the rest of the chapters, funny enough, are actually experiments about the shape of the earth.
Believe it or not, the book where his chapter 2 says you can't do experiments about the shape of the earth. The rest of the book outlines experiments about the shape of the earth. Of course, the one thing is missing from all of those experiment, well, two things. One is truthfulness because some of them are just falsely wrong. The other is control variables.
Um, is it a searchable version of the book? Can it be edited for correction?
You There's no way to edit this for correction. It's all wrong.
But but yeah, I suppose if he's publishing if he's linking uh a PDF. Let me have a look here.
Um there it is. Downloading it.
Downloading it.
That's it. And is it Yeah, it is. It's um there it is. So here I found the now experiments do not spring from the void. They demand the queen of the scientific method first. A scientific hypothesis, a precise prediction about how an independent variable, the cause, affects a dependent variable, the effect. Caltech physicist Sean Carroll argues this on all right the bottom of page 19. If the pages match up between the PDF they do not they do not match up. Oh, that's too bad. Um where are they even in the same like the king and queen? There it is. The only way experiment is the ultimate final arbiter now experiments.
There it is. Okay. Yeah. All right. I found it. I found it. That worked.
So here we have experiments do not spring forth from the boy that demand uh a scientific hypothesis a precise precise prediction about how an independent variable affects a dependent variable. Caltech physicist Sean Carroll. Hypotheses aren't simply useful tools in some potential uh potentially automotive version of science. They are the whole point.
So you need a hypothesis.
I agree. I agree. You read Carl Pauper.
Carl Pauper uh the logic of scientific discovery chapters three and four are all about a testable hypothesis. Now, he doesn't he doesn't belabor about uh this this cause and effect thing that John seems to want. But it doesn't matter either way. Either way, if you can hypothesize about the shape, then we can we can hypothesize about the shape and make predictions about about things using flat earth and using the globe and then test them. Um but if but if John John says you can't you can only just go measure it. Well, the Earth has been measured as a sphere.
There you go.
Anyway, um what else?
We got uh Yep, we got that. We got Larry Scott, one of the people that are qualified to measure the Earth. Surveyor says, "The book is a parody, and I hope it takes all the wind out of Kiwi's attempt at publishing a pamphlet."
Oh, pamphlet. Oh, bless. Um, yeah. So, anyway, let me see. John, John, are you uh he has not in fact messaged me demanding demanding um that uh that I come on or that he come on, that I allow him on?
Let's see. Did Did anybody uh I'm looking here. Did anybody uh uh uh Oh my gosh. Did Did anybody send a message to QE and and uh get him to to to you know come in here? Here we go.
Uh uh I see.
So let's see here.
Save that. We're going to save that to downloads right there. We're going to put put it in here in the folder called baby because he is a baby. Poor little poor little thing. like seriously his his whole life is um is is got has got to be just so pathetic.
Here it is. The tune guy, you mean mc booger eater, Herman monster blockhead because he can't just refer to somebody by their name. He has to have lots of insults that thinks the sun, a gas giant according to the goober, is solid enough. I don't know the context here.
maybe uh solid enough in reference to bouncing radar off of it. It certainly is solid enough to bounce radar off of it because radar has been bounced off of it successfully.
This is akin to Mr. Magcoo reviewing Hemingway. Wow, he has a very high opinion of himself.
For everything sacred and holy, hopefully some of the Eegis listening to imbecile will parrot his mind-numbing train wrecks and bumble fumble stumble onto our presence. It's going to make the $6 million man crash and burn look like a fender bender. So notice this.
He he doesn't want to engage in a a fair debate.
He only wants people to come to where he is a big man in that little pond, not where it's a fair and neutral platform.
He won't he won't do that. He won't participate in a debate where he doesn't get to mute people or cry to the moderator like the little baby he is and say contacting the server owner. W poor little baby boy John Stanja when somebody said mean words to him. He had to contact the server owner and have that person banned for three days cuz wh poor baby John.
Oh my goodness, what a baby. Anyway, um, uh, yeah, these are normal people, people that understand stuff, uh, people that have, uh, responsibilities and consequences for the things they do. So, uh, they they use radar to track storm systems. Are they solid? They're solid enough, aren't they?
They're solid enough. Let let's have a look here. I I just want to show because um because what do you get when you Right.
You start with the conclusion, right?
We've gone over this before.
Flat-earthers uh start with a conclusion and then and then move on after that to to looking for things that support their their hypothes.
you know, rejecting them somehow. How do they reject them? Well, he just gave the the recipe for how to reject real science there. That's what that book chapter 2 is about. But here is here is how we know. Look at this. What What is over here? Oh, I have a Oh, look at that. I have a a desk right there. Or a like I changed I changed around here. I built a standing desk. You can tell I'm standing. Um, and the the light there is is funny. Anyway, so here he he asserts that you can't bounce radar off the sun.
How he he just says it, right?
Uh, well, anyway, people people did attempt to bounce radar off of the sun.
And what what happened? Well, let's have a look. Here's here's the report.
And they they sent uh a very powerful signal.
Let's get this out of here so we can go a little larger.
Um oh, where's my where's my controls? I don't have the controls anyway. All right. Um 1958 to 59 and the uh I forgot the intensity. very strong radar. Probably more than you could you could do today because of the uh uh the power that people would be exposed to. You'd have to be pretty far away from it in order to fire this off. Anyway, uh the travel time of a pulse radar pulse to the sun approximately 93 million miles away and back the earth is about 1,000 seconds.
At the end of the transmitting period of 900 seconds, the antenna was connected directly to the receiving system.
So they they transmitted for 900 seconds and then they they switched the antenna to receive. Antennas can receive and send both um and and so what did they get? Well, they they got back these are the actual plots of the values that they got back.
Now these plots are not random noise.
These are these are the actual um values that they got back. So So like if John is like you can't bounce radar off the sun. Well obviously that's not true because radar was bounced off of the sun. They sent a signal for 900 seconds and then for 900 seconds they listened and this is what they got back.
Well, how does that work, John? How does that work?
This is confirmation that what they sent was bounced back and the amount of time it took.
We know it took about a,000 seconds to go there and back. Well, we know the speed of light. We can compute that distance. So, it wasn't just once, it was multiple times. Here's another one.
You can see the the top of that peak for some reason interference was was uh was removed, right? It didn't bounce or there's a storm on the sun or there was some interference somewhere, right? But that's why you do tests multiple times.
Here's another.
Here's another. This one's very close.
Uh minus the little top here. This dash line is showing the the uh what was transmitted, what was expected to come back.
Uh, why is it not scrolling on for me?
Did I Is is the the existence of the arrow preventing it from scrolling?
What? It went away. Why did it go away?
That's weird. Okay.
And it's back. Okay.
I don't know. All right. Might little glitch on my my program here. All right.
So, uh, more of them. So, anyway, here's more of them. And you can see they they line it up. They're like, here's a noise burst. Yep. So, you get you get interference. And this is part of the control variables of a of an experiment.
So, very nice experiment where they were able to successfully bounce radar off the sun. So, yes, the sun is solid enough. And and so what this is, this is this is showing that that uh anybody that says you can't bounce radar off the sun was wrong. Whatever reason it was, they were wrong. Uh that's one. Science should be repeatable.
And so they repeated it.
Uh right here in 1966, Jesse James did it. And here's the publication. They did it again. They're like, "Oh, well, they actually went into how it happens, right? Plasma bounces u uh radio waves.
It affects it and it depends on the frequency. So, this one doesn't have those uh spikies that they they the other one did, but so it's not it's not quite as quickly easily seeable. So when when flat-earthers claim that you can't bounce radar off the sun, that shows that that was wrong. So then they're back to the the previous thing of just saying nuh-uh, it's all they got, right?
Uh right. But use the method that you laid out here sort of, right? Because you know you you reject any anything that's shape related. So here's a a question then.
What using the super hyper rigid dogmatic version of science that that John has outlined here where only cause and effect can be used and only the naturally naturally observed phenomenon and only one independent variable and dependent variable uh is used. What can you actually do? What successful science has anyone ever done using that method?
I can't think of one. I don't know of one that's that's used that rigorous version of science that he thinks is the only allowed version of science. And so this is important. For centuries, scientists have been doing science. And they've never used the method that he says is the only way to do science. Yet they've been successful. people have successfully figured out how to make airplanes, how to do celestial navigation using the globe, uh figured out um how to determine the distance between points so they know how much fuel to load into an airplane.
People figured out how to build missiles. People figured out how to make medicine to do all sorts of things.
um people have figured out how to solve um problems like smallox or polio.
Did they use the method that that a quantum eraser laid out in the book? Of course they did not. They used a version of science that other scientists have been using for centuries and it's not this hyper rigorous dogmatic version outlined in the book. Um, so, so I'll say that the version of science that quantum eraser uses is completely useless because nothing's ever been done that matches it.
What can you do? There's nothing left.
Anyway, um, real Harnold says, "If only a flurf could listen for 900 seconds."
Of course. Uh uh anyways, if if DD down direction is still in chat, shoot me an email. [email protected].
You can come on and you can present your incredibly super woke version of science. Of course you won't. Um I may have a really busy Wednesday. We'll see. I've got two things booked for Wednesday. Um, one of them will be reviewing Witbit because he's he's back. Another will be a talk on on Chess Chesh's uh channel with uh Dr. Kip.
So, that'll be that.
Um, I'm going to wrap it up here.
I don't have any books or any books any uh uh quantum eraser songs.
Obviously a a uh lack in my my u my collection here, but we did mention Brian's logic and uh what an idiot. What an absolute idiot.
Um type one in chat if Nathan is beating his kid. Type two if it's in CC's car.
Uh oh, Red Beret is here. Oh, I missed all of the derp. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed the derp from Red Beret. Um, he is he is a he is all full of the derp. All right, everybody. Anyway, thank you. I don't know what I'm words and then other words. And uh bye.
I just asked you to unmute.
>> Yeah, I'll respond to that. Yeah, that's a common misunderstanding of the situation. Officially, the sun doesn't rise or set. It's what's known as the sunrise.
>> Says the earth is flat. No up or down, just this or that. He stays up late to watch the sky. Says the sun's a trick.
No need to lie.
He points his finger across the land. No rising or no fiery band. He tells the folks it's all a show. Optical illusion man's old sun in Brian's mind. No round world, no time to find. Sun mirage, it's just a game. He's convinced we're all the same.
Here's the charts. He takes his notes.
Through cosmic waves, his theories float. Brian laughs at solar beams.
Calls them all his seamless dreams.
Dreams.
He stands on rooftop, spreads his tail, challenges the globe, never fails. With each sunrise, shouts his cause. Sun mirage defies our law.
Sun and Brian's mind. No round, no time to find sun. It's just a game. He's convinced we're all the same.
>> So we see at the horizon in the morning and evening time. There is no setting sun or rising sun. And the horizon is not the leading geometric edge of the drone. It's an optical phenomenon. It changes with weather, optics, elevation.
So there it's the meeting of two phenomenons. The horizon, two optical phenomenons, the horizon and what's known as the sun mirage. That's official. That's not me. That's official. Even within the globe paradigm, the horizon is not the leading geometric edge of the globe because there is a constant constant of always at least 7 over and greater than 7 over 6 present within their paradigm. So there is not geometric within that paradigm.
his cosmic waves. His theories floats.
Brian laughs at solar beams.
Calls them all his seamless dreams.
He stands on rooftop, spreads his tail, challenges the globe, never fails. With each sunrise shouts his cause.
>> So whatever the sun is seeing doing at the horizon has no relevance whatsoever to do with a globe or proof for a globe or anything else.
>> Brian's mind.
It's just a game. He's convinced we're all the same for this proof of a flat earth cuz as I said officially it's most known as the summer. Now most people don't know that especially on the gloite because you're attacking the person not the such an idiot.
She's so dumb as well. All the parasite attacks within
Related Videos
VALORANT's Latest 'Exclusive' Tier Bundle is Rough...
KangaValorant
17K views•2026-05-28
Flight Attendant Mocks Poor Looking Black Woman — Mid Air Announcement Exposes Her Real Power
SkyboundStories-b4r
184 views•2026-05-28
I FIXED My Friend’s Blown Turbo RX-8… Then Sold It
Cameron-RX8
134 views•2026-05-28
NewsWatch 12 at 5: Top Stories
NewsWatch12
1K views•2026-05-28
Simon Jordan & Danny Murphy deliver PREDICTIONS for Arsenal's Champions League FINAL with PSG
talkSPORTArsenal
6K views•2026-05-28
Botting is OUT OF CONTROL in Classic WoW (Again)...
SolheimGaming
108 views•2026-05-28
The "AI Job Apocalypse" is CANCELLED!
WesRoth
9K views•2026-05-28
STREET FIGHTER 6 - INGRID Story Walkthrough @ 4K 60ᶠᵖˢ ✔
RajmanGamingHD
12K views•2026-05-28
