YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Globe Liar, Proves the Earth is Flat

Globe Liar, Proves the Earth is Flat — Transcript

by Brian's Logic · 7,778 words · 1,099 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Um, okay. This video is going to be be
0:04uh about uh pulling apart the lies of uh
0:08a glober a baller and showing how him
0:12and the people he's referencing which
0:15are surveyors from the past are proving
0:18a flat earth outright.
0:20Um this is not ignorance. Uh both this
0:24guy that I'm about to address and these
0:28surveyors are all liars. They're all
0:31total lawyers. It's not that I that you
0:34can mark down what they're doing as
0:37ignorance. It is an attempt to deceive
0:40as I was show. So this is the guy right
0:45here. Space audits. He claimed for I
0:50don't like addressing people generally,
0:51but I'll address it here because I don't
0:53want to even it to even be about him,
0:56just about what he's promoting. Um, this
0:59guy was someone who used to pretend to
1:00be a flat artor. He never was. I never
1:02trusted him. Never never had anything to
1:04do with him. Uh, he's addressing this
1:07thing, this four peaks across the sea,
1:09the the 1879 Spain Algeria junction, 270
1:13km triangles measured over the
1:15Mediterranean. Right. This is what
1:17they're talking about, right? I'm going
1:19to just make it a bit bigger so you can
1:22see like this is what they're talking
1:24about. They're talking about uh top
1:27topography here. Um this is a map,
1:31right? These are all triangles. Every
1:33sing the sum of all these triangles,
1:36right? Will always only add to 180°.
1:39Same for all these triangles here,
1:41right? This is showing the steps down in
1:43depth, right? under the water and
1:45whatever else. But this uh this is prove
1:50this one map here outright proves a flat
1:52earth. There's no if buts or may. I
1:54could just stop the video here. Flat
1:56proven, right? Because what they're
1:58claiming to do, right, is not shown
2:01here. And nor can it be shown on the map
2:03and there's no formula to that you can
2:06formulas that you can that are provided
2:08for any topographical map, any scale map
2:11anywhere. There's no formulas provided
2:14that allows you to convert from flat to
2:17glow, right? They don't exist and they
2:20never have because nobody's needed
2:22needed them. Why didn't they need them?
2:23Because the earth is flat. Why would you
2:25need formulas to convert the globe if
2:28you're not on a globe? It makes no
2:30sense. You wouldn't. So, what's going on
2:33here is these people are outright proven
2:36with this map here, this whole map with
2:38all their triangles, it's a flat earth.
2:40There's no if buts or may. This is even
2:43now they're using a grid here. They're
2:44probably probably trying to convert the
2:46latitude and longitude to a grid format
2:48like with the Mercer projection which
2:51just causes problems in the very north
2:53and south of the of the map. Uh just but
2:57it's flat. It causes flat problems. Not
3:00the uh there is corrections. Um but
3:04they're for a flat plane to position
3:08things like Greenland for instance is
3:10too big you know things like that right
3:12that but it has nothing to do with a
3:14globe but they try to promote it as if
3:16the Mercada projection has something to
3:17do with a globe. No it's just an attempt
3:19to imply that there's a globe but
3:22there's but there is no globe. Do you
3:24know what I mean? It can't be. It's a
3:26map. You cannot convert map to globe and
3:30it work or globe to map. It just doesn't
3:33work unless you have the formulas that
3:36don't exist and never existed anywhere
3:38on any map. Right now, I've been through
3:40this in the p in recent uh past. Sorry,
3:44I shouldn't mean to do that.
3:50Sorry, I meant to bring this back to
3:52here. There we go. Don't want to see
3:55that either. Now, so point is those
3:58formulas don't exist. They're not on
4:00this map. They're not anywhere. Right.
4:02So, here is what uh this guy here, the
4:07space audits guy, this is what he's
4:09depicting it as. Same exact thing using
4:12a map. And if you look in close, you can
4:14see this is another grade map. Uh even
4:16if they're trying to turn the latitude
4:18and longitude grid into uh into an XY
4:21grade, which it you shouldn't do and
4:23can't do, right? Even when they're
4:25trying to do that, right? It doesn't
4:27matter if they use it as the polar as a
4:29polar grid or as an XY grid. You're
4:32still talking about a flat earth even
4:34though it's not correct as an XY grid,
4:36right? It's wrong and it ruins the time
4:38zones, but it doesn't matter. Point is
4:40is that this is a map. They're using a
4:42map and these are straight lines. So,
4:44what this guy here, the space guy,
4:48I have corrected this guy here in the
4:50past week and a half on different
4:52things. and
4:55he's one of these people. You correct
4:57them and show that he's wrong on
4:58something. Show that he's trying to in
5:01infer a globe or in put a globe in
5:03something. And it's not always him. What
5:06I mean is that he's referencing things
5:08like this from the past. And when it's
5:11pointed out to him that what he's
5:13referencing preassumes a globe
5:15mathematically before it starts, you
5:17know, things like covering the sky or,
5:19you know, uh um what I'm going to show
5:22here, uh which is a claim that they're
5:24measuring more than 180 degrees in in a
5:27triangle, you know, stuff like that.
5:29It's preumption of a globe. When you
5:31correct this guy on things that are
5:34wrong, he will not concede. He tries to
5:38argue the point and that's a now he
5:41knows what he's doing. That means he
5:45this guy here space audits this guy is
5:48an outright deceiver and he's best not
5:51spoken to because he is not going to
5:55tell you the truth. Him and the people
5:56around him, they're going to try to
5:58gaslight you into believing something is
6:00true when it isn't. He's one to
6:02bamboozle you with as many spreadsheets
6:05as he can and and the whole
6:09purpose of it is to gaslight you into
6:11believing some absolute rubbish, right?
6:14That isn't true. That's the whole
6:16purpose of it. Now, as you can see here,
6:19these this is what's going on. This is
6:21what is happening or what did happen in
6:23real life, right? these four triangles
6:26between these four points in Portugal
6:28and Spain across the Mediterranean. And
6:31regardless of what they're trying to do
6:33here, like reduction to center, all this
6:35complete rubbish, right? All the
6:37distances are straight line distances,
6:40right? All the triangles have to have
6:42180 degrees within them. Right? One
6:44second here. You cannot, right? You
6:47cannot, no matter what I do here, right?
6:50until I bring it to 180 uh altogether.
6:54You will never have more than 180 or
6:57less than 180 degrees within a triangle.
7:00You you just it's impossible. It's the
7:02breaking of an axiom. But this guy this
7:05guy space audits and the people he's
7:08referencing or claiming to measure
7:10measure with the lights right more than
7:14180 degrees. You can't. If you're
7:16measuring between three points, I just
7:18show back here. If you're measuring
7:20between any of these three points,
7:22right? So from this Philhausen to Mulh
7:25and Taticia, right, or M Sabina to
7:29Mhisha,
7:30whatever you're right, you're measuring
7:33between three points with straight
7:34lines. When you're using a Theodolite,
7:36that's going to be especially back in
7:38them days, that's going to be just the
7:40horizontal azimuth on the on the on the
7:42theodolite uh sorry theodolite. So no
7:45matter what angles you measure, the
7:47three of them will not add up to more
7:49than 180°. You're using straight lines.
7:52You cannot you cannot use straight lines
7:56that meet a tree three straight lines
7:57meeting at three vertices and ever end
7:59up with more than 180°. That can't
8:02happen. I've shown this in in other
8:04videos that you like it's not even
8:06something I need to show. It's just an
8:08axiom. This is an axiom. It's an imposs.
8:12It's not just that someone made it up.
8:13It's an impossibility for there to be
8:16more than 180° when all these angles,
8:19these three angles are added up at any
8:21point. If you're measuring, this is like
8:23measuring with an with a theodolite. So,
8:26if you can imagine this is over in Spain
8:28and they're measuring two places here in
8:30Portugal or vice versa, right? Then this
8:33is one mountain. This is a second
8:34mountain. This is a third mountain,
8:36right? That you're going to, right? No
8:39matter what way you do it, when you come
8:40to here and measure these two between
8:42these two mountains or here and measure
8:44between these two mountains, the three
8:45angles can only add up to 180° because
8:48you're using horizontal and straight
8:51lines. It cannot it's all on the same
8:55plane. It's all straight lines. And it
8:57doesn't matter if they try to to uh make
9:00the straight lines diverge diverge from
9:02each other. It won't matter because when
9:04you bring them back together, they make
9:06up 180°. There's no way around this,
9:09right? So, anyone trying to tell you
9:11that they've measured more than 180
9:13degrees with straight lines and using
9:16triangles like they're lying. They're
9:19just lying to you. This guy's space
9:20audits. I corrected this guy on it. He
9:22and he tried to argue the point. The
9:24guy's a lawyer and the people he's
9:25promoting are lawyers. They might be
9:27people from the past. They probably they
9:28all probably passed away. Whatever. Who
9:30cares? They're lawyers from the past.
9:33Like we've been dealing with since the
9:341700s. flat earth girls have been
9:36dealing with lawyers, scumbag lawyers
9:39since the 1700s. That's what we've been
9:41dealing with. And this is we're still
9:43they're still at it today trying to make
9:45people believe that you can measure uh
9:48three straight uh between three points
9:50with straight lines and three vertices
9:52and end up more than 180°. You can't. No
9:55matter what way you twist or turn it,
9:56you will never end up with more than 180
9:59degrees when you're measuring between
10:01three points with straight lines like it
10:03will have to do with the light. It's
10:06impossible. It's absolutely impossible.
10:08As I said in the past, my mother's late
10:12partner now he's passed away. He was a
10:15geodetic surveyor for three or four
10:17decades. He never measured anything
10:21right with triangles where he wasn't
10:23working with 180 degrees right strictly
10:26right he made maps everything right he
10:29never right the whole spherical excess
10:32thing that's a mathematical afterthought
10:34that's added in that's what it is the
10:37when you're doing the measurements with
10:38the light and he he he retired back in
10:41the early 90s before all the GPS and all
10:44the other and Eden's to stations and all
10:46these came in he was old school. He did
10:49it with the odd lights and he did it
10:51with calculations using 180° all the
10:53time. At no point was there any ever
10:57more than 180° in any triangle because
10:59it meant his everything his whole job
11:03would be gone. He wouldn't be able to do
11:04it. So the idea of anything more than
11:07180° being within a triangle. Anyone
11:09trying to make you believe that there is
11:11more than 180° within a triangle h is
11:15lying to you. They're lying. You cannot
11:18have three straight lines meeting the
11:19three vertices and it end up more or
11:22less than 180 degrees. It is complete
11:26another horse manure. Right? So that's
11:29the first point. But the second point is
11:30far more like that is that ends this. I
11:33could just end the video right here.
11:35Right? I could end the video right here
11:36just just with just that alone. I could
11:39just say look flat out proven. That's
11:42all I need to do. But I'm going to
11:44continue on because I want to show the
11:47epic levels of deception that's going
11:49on. This is right. So we've established
11:53right you can't have more than 180°
11:55within a triangle. Right? You're me
11:57you're measuring measuring when you're
11:58measuring between three points with
12:00straight lines and three that meet three
12:02vertices. That can't be done. Maps,
12:05right? There is no curvature on maps and
12:07no formulas to add in the curvature
12:09because it doesn't exist. There is all
12:11the distances are straight lines. all
12:13this flatter proven already. But let's
12:16go, let's just step one step further.
12:20And I suspected this is the kind of
12:22nonsense was going to be in this video
12:24when I saw I said something's telling me
12:26that what's in this video is the
12:28hijacking of perspective.
12:31As well as trying to pretend that they
12:32were measuring I will link this video
12:34below. as well as trying to pretend that
12:36they were measuring spherical excess.
12:38You can't measure spherical excess using
12:41straight lines and vertices between
12:43three points. You couldn't measure it
12:45even if it existed. The even if we're on
12:47a globe, you couldn't measure it like
12:48that. You would still have to use 180°
12:51and then add in the spherical excess
12:54mathematically afterwards. But you'd
12:55have to have proof of being on a globe
12:57in the first place, which we don't have
12:59because we're not on one. Do you know
13:01what I mean? It's a it's a joke. But
13:04this is where they start trying to add
13:05in or hijack perspective and straw man
13:09flat earth. I have destroyed this
13:11complete utter rubbish way way back.
13:14It's now 2026 I'm making this. In 2016 I
13:18held a guy who is not around these days
13:21on the globe side called Jesse Kazowski
13:23who was a claimed retired geodetic
13:26surveyor. I spent four days in 2016.
13:30Four days it took me of going constantly
13:33commenting to and back with him, him
13:35sending me links, me telling him, "No,
13:38you're talking rubbish." Four days it
13:40took the guy to admit that something he
13:43was trying to promote when he was trying
13:45to promote it. Four days it took him to
13:47admit to me that he hadn't taken angular
13:50size change into account. Four days he
13:55before he admitted, "No, I didn't take
13:57perspective into account." Why did it
13:58take four days for that guy to admit
14:00that? Why did it take four days? That's
14:0310 years ago. Because the guy is an
14:06outright lawyer, that's why. And a
14:08deceiver, right? He's not around anymore
14:11cuz he got his ass handed to him in this
14:13arena. But you do have people like this
14:16space guy who's promoting lawyers just
14:18like that Klowski guy from years ago.
14:21And he's not the only mock lawyer
14:23surveyor that's been in this uh arena on
14:25the globe side. But these guys here,
14:28whoever they were who did this thing,
14:30they were al also lawyers. Uh cuz you
14:33can't get this stuff wrong. If you're a
14:34surveyor, you couldn't get this stuff
14:36wrong. If surveying didn't know what I'm
14:38about to show concerning optics, right?
14:41And what I've shown years ago, right,
14:44and proved years ago, if surveyors
14:46didn't know that, then the whole world
14:47would be surveyed incorrectly already.
14:49We wouldn't. All of surveying would be
14:51wrong. But this guy is trying to claim
14:53right that on a flat earth we should see
14:57this right in in the reticle we should
15:00see the top of this mountain here uh top
15:04of this mountain from these are from
15:06Phil Helen these are from uh this
15:08position right that we should be seeing
15:11these other mountains right at different
15:13points in the reticle reticle we should
15:16be seeing the lowest one which is MVIA
15:20from Felhousen here and Taticia here and
15:25Mason here, right? And he shows this
15:28over here. This is what it should look
15:30like on flat. What? But then you
15:33wouldn't have What you mean we should
15:34see that up there? Why would we see that
15:36up there? We wouldn't. We see it down
15:38here where he's trying to say the globe
15:41fits it. No, we won't. We'll see it down
15:43here. That's why we'll see the top of
15:45it. And the reason you'll see the top of
15:47it there, sorry. Um, and the reason for
15:50that is because of a an effect I showed
15:53years ago that is a secondary effect of
15:55angular size change called op optical
15:58drop. I proved this outright years ago
16:01and I'm going to show a demonstration of
16:02it in a minute and I proved it with
16:04lasers. I proved it in the real world. I
16:06proved it with people showing it in the
16:07real world. This is a real thing. So
16:10anyone trying to promote what they're
16:12trying to do here again once again is
16:14hijack perspective and call it our
16:16curve. That's all they've ever been
16:17doing. Mess around with the mathematics
16:19and call something our curve when it's
16:21not. I'm going to show not only am I
16:22going to show how this proves a flat
16:24earth but I'm going to show how how this
16:27guy here and well or not his
16:29measurements the space audit. So not his
16:31measurements but how what he's showing
16:33here and these measurements how they are
16:36completely wrong even for a globe right
16:39they fit flat out they don't fit a
16:40globe. So
16:43let me just show the reason that this
16:46point here right in this circle will
16:49actually appear here on a flat earth is
16:51perspective. You will not see this above
16:55the uh crosshairs at 270 km away. The
16:58reason you won't is because the
17:00theodolite has a certain focal length
17:03right and an effect of perspective. What
17:06happens with cameras and stuff with
17:07focal length focal lengths is that
17:10something will change in his angular
17:11size but it will appear lower in your uh
17:15what appears to be your direct
17:17horizontal line of sight than it truly
17:19is. Technically this crosshair is center
17:22here is actually hitting the center like
17:25it is hitting the center
17:26orthographically or this point here on
17:29that mountain right it is hitting that
17:32that's not like it just appears that
17:34it's not. So I just show what I mean. Um
17:37I've gone through this in the past. So
17:40here is an orthographic view of let's
17:42say let's say a smaller and bigger
17:44mountain. It's just two hills or
17:46whatever. A straight line view from here
17:48means you will right meet this point
17:51here. So if there's a surveyor here with
17:53a with a theodite then the center of the
17:55crosshairs is actually hitting there. It
17:58is hitting there but it doesn't appear
18:00to be because of angular size change
18:03over a horizontal plane. What happens is
18:06that it appears as if this got smaller
18:09and that the line of sight with a
18:11theodolite or at less
18:17over a flat plane. So I'm going to show
18:20uh go through that now but
18:23show it in a minute there I should say.
18:25But first thing we got to show right is
18:30before I go into that is the the claim
18:34is that there's that Mhason stands 2344
18:38m above Philhausen. So just to give some
18:42so this is Phil Hson 1,147 m this is
18:46Mhen 3,481 m. So there's a difference uh
18:50between the two of 2,344
18:54m. Now
18:57the angular size right of 2344 meters
19:01over 20 270,000 m which would be 270 km
19:06is 0.497° 497° or 29 minutes 51 seconds.
19:12Right? Now that is right what he has
19:15here. He has a 50 right 29 minutes 51
19:18seconds. Right? That is the angular size
19:21of 2344 m at 27 or 270 km away. Right?
19:2820 that's his actual angular size. If
19:30you can see here the recorded here is
19:34when you were when they were looking at
19:36different mountains to when they're
19:38looking to mold hasten the recorded is
19:40the dip from the reticle here is uh 30
19:44minutes 47 seconds. The globe supposed
19:48prediction remember this because I'll
19:50come back to a minute is 33
19:52minutes 30 seconds and the flat earth is
19:5730 right uh would be they have this all
20:00screwed up because they're trying to
20:01claim the flat earth should be above
20:03here be 30 uh minutes 9 seconds but that
20:07would be what it actually would be but
20:09it wouldn't actually be a dip it would
20:11only be an apparent dip because you're
20:13not that it's actually you're the
20:16reticule center of the reticule is
20:19actually still meeting the the mountain
20:21below its tip over here. But it doesn't
20:24appear that way. But just to show first,
20:28you cannot have angular size for a start
20:31on a globe art. The the effect of
20:34perspective
20:36violates our curve mathematics and our
20:39curve mathematics violate perspective.
20:42I've shown this in the past. If I just
20:44go to here, this is a video I link uh uh
20:46this is a video I made about 15 16
20:48minutes long about how or curve and uh
20:53uh perspective cannot coexist together
20:56in reality over with your oil line at uh
21:00at um at the water line. Let's just say
21:04on a globe barrel and you move something
21:07that's six feet high from right at your
21:10nose away from you three miles that's 70
21:13right it will be hidden by our curve
21:17after 3 miles because there's a 72.02 in
21:20of a drop uh um um over 3 miles of over
21:26our curve and that means that 6ft object
21:29will be hidden by our curve after 3
21:30miles. So with your eyes at the water
21:33line, a boat a six foot high right in
21:36front of you can sail away in a direct
21:38right direct non-deviating path uh for 3
21:41miles and when it gets that far away you
21:44won't be able to see it because the
21:46earth will be blocking it right it will
21:48be outside your it's geometrically can't
21:50be seen right but if we then go to right
21:56the angle or size of something that's 6t
21:59so if you take a flat earth and put
22:00someone with the Roy line at the water
22:02at at sea level and you have a distance
22:07over 3 mi of 15,840
22:09ft and an angler and a size of a boat
22:13that's 6 foot 6t high. When that boat
22:16sails 3 miles away from you, its angular
22:19size will be 0.021703°.
22:24That is the so that that is the angular
22:27resolution limit of the human eye. So on
22:30a flat earth or on a glow art something
22:32that's 6t high the same conditions the
22:35only difference is the geometry. So one
22:37is flat one is one is a sphere the same
22:41where the same thing will happen on a
22:43globe or curve will block you from
22:46seeing the boat right after 3 miles and
22:48on a flat earth uh angular resolution
22:52will cause the boat to disappear. Now in
22:54this video I go through what would
22:56happen if you try to invoke both of them
22:58simultaneously. If you try try to invoke
23:01our curve and perspective simultaneously
23:05in under those conditions that I put in
23:07there then what's going to happen is the
23:09boat would disappear after 1.8 at 1.8
23:12being 1.8 and 1.9 miles. The reason is
23:15is that uh the bottom uh two foot of the
23:18boat would be blocked. Uh is it two foot
23:22or four? I can't remember. But the
23:23bottom of the boat will be blocked by
23:25our curve at 1.8 miles and the remainder
23:28that's above that its angular size would
23:31be reaching 0.02 degrees. So that means
23:34if our curve and perspective both
23:36existed together then uh the boat would
23:39the six foot high object would h and if
23:41the person was on a globe and they had a
23:43rise at the water and the boat sailed
23:46away 6' high boat sailed away uh from
23:50them in a non-deviating path for 1.8
23:52date the 1.9 miles. The boat would
23:54disappear because the the bottom of the
23:58boat would be blocked by our curve and
23:59the top would have what would be still
24:01visible would have an angular res
24:03angular size of 0.02°
24:05making it the boat not uh visible to the
24:09observer. But we know that doesn't
24:12happen. We know that in reality that
24:13boat will have to be three miles away
24:17for it to disappear. So that means it
24:20can only be disappearing because of uh
24:24earth curve right or perspective. Now we
24:28know for definite that angular size
24:30change and perspective does exist. That
24:32means that earth the earth has to be
24:35flat and there is no globe cuz as I said
24:38and I show in this video earth curve and
24:41perspective can't coexist together. It's
24:44shown and proven in this video I go
24:46through the whole lot. So it can only be
24:47one or the other. And when we go through
24:50the process of elimination, the only one
24:52that's eliminated is our curve. Why?
24:54Because we know perspective exists. And
24:56that means our curve cannot exist.
24:59Proving that m perspective and our curve
25:02cannot coexist together. That's
25:04important. And why it's important is
25:05because it's going to be important here
25:08in a minute, right? cuz they are they if
25:12they try to uh these people sometimes
25:15they'll try to uh they'll try to use a
25:18little bit of perspective when it suits
25:20them with the work and it's out of
25:22rubbish it's completely out of rubbish
25:24right can't do that
25:26so
25:28what's actually happening I'm going to
25:30show the uh demonstration first of what
25:35is actually happening here and why this
25:37here proves a flat earth Right. So this
25:40is this here is a from a different
25:43video. H I have it shown on a different
25:45video. This is just a short video I have
25:47it to show. Uh it's a demonstration. I
25:49have several demonstrations like this.
25:51Uh and this demonstration is on a bigger
25:54video uh that I have if anyone wants to
25:56see it. And I have other videos using
25:59lasers and stuff and proving this point.
26:00And I have videos proving it in real
26:02life and blah blah blah. Basically you'd
26:04have to just uh denote your perspective.
26:08um for deny the existence of perspective
26:11right for to deny what's happening here
26:14and I've had I've had people in the past
26:16try to do that now first of all to
26:18explain what's happening on the phone
26:19screen here this is 0.4 it fluctuates
26:22between 0.3 and 0.4 uh but that's the
26:25tilt from left to right of the table
26:29there's no tilt front and back so in the
26:32x-axis there's a tilt of 0.3 to 0.4
26:34four, but there's no tilt front and
26:36back. And I'm using a plumb bob function
26:39because what I'm doing is I'm making it
26:40parallel to the surface of the table.
26:43Right? That means uh my lens here is
26:46parallel to the surface of the table.
26:48The table is slightly tilted and because
26:50of that the the shown at very slight
26:53tilt uh from from across the x-axis
26:56here, but on the y- axis there's no
26:58tilt. And the whole point is that you
27:00can't guarantee that a surface right
27:02let's say a table or whatever that you
27:04can't guarantee that that's going to be
27:07uh that's not going to ramp up or slant
27:09down like slightly. So you have to make
27:12a parallel to it. Once you make a
27:13parallel to it then once you've made a
27:16parallel to that then you know that your
27:19uh that the surface you're using will
27:22will be parallel. It won't slant down or
27:25lift up parallel to what you're showing.
27:28Um this uh this is a an effect that a
27:32lot of the people on our opposing side
27:34tried their best to deny. I had people
27:36try literally literally caught lying in
27:39the debates against me concerning this.
27:42I had uh surveyors cuz Leoski and them
27:45trying to argue and he couldn't. All
27:47these people couldn't argue. They had to
27:48run off because there's no way out of
27:50it. And I showed it in real life.
27:52There's no way around this. But this is
27:54this if you take what what's going on
27:56here, right, with them trying to claim
27:58that the the mountain should be up here
28:00on a flat earth and down there on a
28:02globe. No, it should be down here on a
28:03flat earth. And I'm going to further
28:05show how this is how their globe 33 uh
28:08minutes 30 seconds. Further show how
28:11this is completely wrong even for a
28:13globe in a moment. So sorry. Right. So
28:17I'm just going to press play here. Now
28:19this is on a different video. I have the
28:20sound off. Um, but you will see the
28:24effect there in a moment. So, as I move
28:28it away, you can see that this
28:32crosshairs here
28:34um are uh parallel to the table. And as
28:38you can see, the the line that was
28:41meeting the bottom of the crosshair is
28:43now appearing to get lower and lower as
28:46it as you go. And in a moment, I start
28:48pulling it back. There you go.
28:53And if we bring it in close, it kind of
28:56loses focus. And bring it back. Yeah.
28:58Forward and then back.
29:00And there there I show right there. I
29:03show that the line here of the that's on
29:06the back of the phone charger there.
29:08That that is in alignment with this line
29:10here or even maybe slightly above it.
29:12The point is is that
29:15the point is is go back slightly. I show
29:17it again.
29:19Point being is that this is purely an
29:22effect of perspective and that's why
29:23what what's being shown there proves a
29:25flat earth. That's exactly what you you
29:27would see on a flat earth because of
29:29perspective angular size change over
29:31distance across a flat plane. Right? You
29:33know there you are.
29:38So if I just
29:42show again as it comes back towards it
29:46and then it goes away. As you can see
29:48each time it appears to drop then rise
29:52and drop then rise. Is the phone charger
29:54getting smaller, shrinking in actual
29:56size? No. Just it's just uh appearing to
30:00you over distance. So the the line here
30:03on the phone charger, this line when I
30:05bring it in closer, it loses focus.
30:07That's why I don't always bring it in
30:08close. But this line here, right, as you
30:12can see when I bring it in, it's in
30:13alignment. It's actually maybe slightly
30:15above this line. Um, but when I move it
30:19away, you can see it appears lower.
30:23And I bring it back in, it appears to
30:25rise again. So this is purely an
30:27effective perspective, an effect of what
30:30they're showing here. This is purely an
30:32effective perspective over flat art.
30:34That's exactly what's happening. And
30:36this is exactly this amount here 29.51
30:41uh 29.5 29 uh minutes 51 seconds that is
30:46exactly what would match here that and
30:49as again once sorry one more time here
30:53we are again think about what you just
30:55seen and
30:59here we go
31:02if one mountain was brought towards the
31:04other obviously the higher amount might
31:06end up way higher.
31:09See, there's no way around it. I've
31:11shown this time after time after time,
31:13proved it with lasers, proved it in real
31:14life, shown it with many examples in
31:16real in real life and got testimony of
31:18people in real life of things that they
31:20have seen themselves as well. Like
31:23there's no way out of it. This is
31:25optical drop. That's what's been shown
31:27here. That's what all it is. But now
31:30that flat earth has been outright proven
31:33first of all with this, right? this map
31:36then this Allan this space audits guy
31:38does his map straight lines triangles
31:40all proven then proven through uh
31:44perspective right as well so flat earth
31:47is absolutely no doubt about it proven
31:50by this guy's video I'll leave you I
31:52I'll I'll link the video in the
31:54description it's h going to be filled
31:56with all kinds of nonsense doesn't
31:58define terms as you would expect someone
32:01to do if they were being honest this guy
32:03here he's not honest the space god sky.
32:06I'm after correcting him as I said in
32:07the past week or so of making this video
32:10uh on several things and he will not
32:13concede like he's claiming that it's
32:15okay to violate axioms. You can't do
32:18that. You can't violate axioms. The the
32:21whole point of axioms is that they can't
32:22be violated. It's not that people have
32:24agreed upon it. They can't be if you
32:27have three straight lines meeting at
32:28three vertices. They can never meet h
32:32sum the internal angles can never sum to
32:34more or less than 180 degrees. But back
32:38to this a second. This globe here that
32:42that he's that this guy here and
32:44whatever uh these people may have been
32:47saying should be 33 minutes and 30
32:50seconds, right? Uh um below the this
32:55this uh crosshairs here, right? Okay.
33:00I'm just going to show something. Well,
33:01first first thing I want to show is
33:05right the angular size of 2244
33:09m at 270 km. The angular size of that is
33:140.497.
33:160.497.
33:17That's his angular size. Right. Right.
33:20That's how that's in reality. That's his
33:23angular size over a flat plane. So, just
33:27a second. Just going to come out of this
33:30and go up to here.
33:32Now on a globe art the angular size well
33:36it doesn't have an angular size on a
33:37globe bar because it doesn't have
33:39there's no perspective right but um
33:43there's no perspective perspective
33:44debunks a globe but the angular size of
33:47something not size but the angle that
33:49would be made between if I just zoom in
33:51there from the the uh I just show the
33:55mountain just so things are from from
33:58this philosen right at 1,137 m uh the
34:03angle to the point that would be uh uh
34:06to the amount uh to the point directly
34:09at 1,137 m on Mold Hen and the and the
34:13peak of Mhason, right? The angle in
34:17reality to that is 0.497
34:20uh degrees, right? But that angle if we
34:24with tilt with the tilt if you remember
34:27anyone who's watched my channel a bit
34:28I've I I made a video a while back
34:31telling people do not allow them to not
34:34address the tilt right and this is the
34:36reason what I'm going to show here
34:38because once you address the tilt then
34:41that the angle between those two points
34:43is not 0 497 it's not 256
34:49right so if I just one second 0.256. So
34:53if if I just 025
34:58right multiplied by 60 equals 15. So it
35:03won't be the point being is that you the
35:07um if I just show
35:11here right it's showing that the tip of
35:15the mountain what they're trying to
35:16claim for a globe would be almost at the
35:1830 the 30 mark here. So it' be zero here
35:21down to 30 and this would be 60 up to
35:2330. That would mean that this would be
35:2560 or this would be 30 30 minutes of
35:28degree, right? Cuz in the reticle,
35:30right, this is what it would mean. It
35:31would be about 30 minutes of degree. But
35:34what it would really be on a globe,
35:36right, that angle between this point and
35:38this point, what it would really be is
35:4015, not 30. It won't be 30. And it only
35:44gets worse watching a show.
35:47the dip angle right now I'm using uh in
35:51miles and it should be 167.77 I have
35:54167.76 it's only worse for the globe if
35:57I bring it that bit the arc length a
35:59little bit longer the point being is
36:01that
36:02h the dip angle from here from this
36:05point here to
36:08the dip angle from there sorry
36:13to here this point here which would be
36:15the the tip of the top of the mountain,
36:19right? because I have the dip angle
36:22between this point here
36:25uh sorry the
36:28this point here and
36:31this point here which is on a tangent
36:33that's connected to this point I just
36:35show right so I just zoom in there is
36:40that angle
36:42zoom in it's a small angle so I have to
36:44do a bit of zooming on
36:47right it's in here right just to
36:49try and zoom in. So this angle here, you
36:53can kind of see see it kind of
36:55highlighted there, right? That is
36:580.9480867
37:01blah blah blah. Right?
37:03That is the dip angle for a globe when
37:06you bring in the tilt.
37:08What do they have? Right? What's this
37:10guy have? A dip angle of 33
37:14uh minutes and 30 seconds. Right? 33
37:18minutes and 30 seconds. Hang on a
37:20second.
37:220.948.
37:24Hang on. Let's just let's just get this
37:26a sec. So, 0.9,
37:30right? 0.9 is a 48 uh 48, right? We just
37:35multiply that by 60,
37:37right? That'll be 56
37:4188.
37:43So if we're just going to go right 0.94
37:47multiply by 60 would be 56.4
37:52minutes
37:54of a dip. Not 33
37:57minutes of a dip,
38:00right? You're talking almost double it.
38:01The same for this, right? So where are
38:05they getting their numbers from? Where's
38:07this guy Allan getting these numbers
38:08from? Where are these surveillas getting
38:09their numbers from? I'll tell you where
38:11they're getting their numbers from.
38:12Right? I'm not going to go into all of
38:13it now, but they're hijacking a flat
38:15earth and that's what they're trying to
38:17do. They have to they're messing with
38:19the manamatics, right? They might even
38:20be trying to add in some terrestrial
38:23nonrefraction right? To try
38:26and make this lift up so they can hijack
38:29what would be seen on a flat earth,
38:30right? Which is this, right? This is
38:34what you'll see on a flat earth,
38:37right? This is what you'll see.
38:39The effect of perspective. That's what
38:41you'll see. The thing that destroys the
38:43globe that I showed a minute ago, that's
38:45what you see in a flat earth. See the
38:46way it's starting to appear to get lower
38:48and lower and lower. And those
38:50crosshairs are parallel with this
38:52surface of this table. I've shown all
38:54this in other video. I've showed the
38:56measurements. I measured showed
38:57everything I was doing with the table.
38:59Everything. Nobody could argue with me.
39:01Se and that's not what I did. I did, as
39:04I said, showed all this in real life and
39:05everything. I showed it with lasers.
39:07There's just no beating it, right? You
39:09can't get away from it. So the only way
39:12what they have to actually do is deny
39:14the existence of perspective.
39:17Right? So they're denying that something
39:18will change in angular size over
39:20distance. They're denying the effect of
39:23of uh obviously angular size change. The
39:25effect of a secondary effect then of
39:27which I'm showing there which is optical
39:29drop. And then they're going to have to
39:30also deny uh um visual occultation and
39:34and any other uh perspective effect. But
39:37they're the three three main ones,
39:40right? That's what they're going to have
39:41to do cuz this is not 56 or whatever,
39:45right? 04. This is 33. That's what
39:48they're trying to say for Globar. For
39:50them, it's close to what is the the dip
39:52of 30 47, right? From the but it's not a
39:55dip. This is the point cuz that is not a
39:59dip angle. It is a dip. You can measure
40:01it as a dip angle, but you you're it's
40:03only an apparent dip because you are
40:05actually in autographically lookically
40:08you are actually meeting that point on
40:10the mountain. It's just it appears due
40:12to perspective to be lower. That's all
40:14it is. And their numbers are like this
40:18guy's numbers are double like he's
40:20inflated them into double. How can you
40:22do that? I tell you why he's doing it.
40:2433 minutes 30 seconds. It's not very
40:27close to 29 minutes 51 seconds.
40:30Right? If you subtracted 59 minutes,
40:33let's say one second. Right?
40:37Sorry, not 60. That's not 90, but 60.
40:40Right? Minus
40:4329
40:4551
40:4830.49.
40:49Right? So, the dip angle right here,
40:53right, the apparent is not a real dip
40:54angle. It's only an apparent dip. The
40:56apparent dip matches where exactly where
40:59the flat out would show the tip of the
41:01mountain, exactly where it would show it
41:04because of perspective, right? But it's
41:06not a real dip. It's only an apparent
41:08dip, right? Cuz you actually are
41:09actually meeting the mountain with the
41:11crosshairs. It just doesn't appear that
41:12way. This has all been shown in the
41:15past.
41:16So I don't know where he's getting this
41:18number from any of these people because
41:21when you bring the uh tilt of the globe
41:24of the the divergence of the zenets
41:26right when I say tilt I'm talking about
41:28the rever divergence of the zenets into
41:30account uh you get half of that or you
41:35get sorry you get nearly double that cuz
41:38the tilt is so much greater and the same
41:40for this if you were to take an angle
41:42between those two points uh that would
41:44match 2 3 4 mters, right? Because of the
41:47tilt of the or the divergence, I should
41:50say I've same saying tilt the divergence
41:52of the of the two zenit because of that
41:54on a globe you're going to get 0.256
41:57as your angle whereas in reality in
42:01reality it's not it's going to be 0.497
42:04matching a flat earth. That's what it's
42:06going to be. So first of all maps
42:09outright proven the earth is flat.
42:11Right? There we are again.
42:14Right? triangles outright proven the
42:17flat. All these are measured with
42:18straight lines and theodolites. There's
42:20no way around it. All this is proven
42:23flatter. There's just these people
42:24trying to hijack a reality and then
42:27trying to gaslight you into believing
42:29something that's true that is not true.
42:32AI is constantly at it. There's no way.
42:35This is we're in a situation in the
42:37world where where especially with the
42:39globe more than nothing else where it's
42:42a it's like an onslaught of gaslighting
42:45and people like this space audits guy
42:47down here he is directly involved in
42:50that right he is proving the earth is
42:54flat with his maps these straight lines
42:56and his triangles and so are these other
42:58these other people who did this thing
43:00right 270 km that's a straight line it
43:04can't not be kilome
43:05You know when you're home at a straight
43:07a distance between A and B, it's a
43:08straight line, right? So maps,
43:11triangles, straight lines, the lights,
43:14perspective, right? All of these things
43:18are proven. All of these things prove a
43:20flat earth and debunk a globe outright.
43:23And whatever is going on with this guy's
43:27uh 33 minutes 30 seconds, whatever
43:30nonsense is going on there, it doesn't
43:32match what would be for their globe when
43:34the divergence of Zenit is taken into
43:37account because 270 km is 167.77
43:40miles. That's the length of this arc
43:42length. And I have all those heights and
43:44everything correctly correct for those
43:47two mountains. I'll show it. Uh let me
43:50just one second just to show
43:53one second. Sorry, I look for algebra.
43:56Where is the
43:58circle? So that's what I brought the
44:01tangent off. That's exactly the point,
44:04right? That is the height of the
44:06mountain, uh the smaller mountain.
44:08That's the height of the bigger mountain
44:10where this orange uh orange um arc meets
44:14it. That's the height difference. So
44:16there's no way around it. this guy,
44:19Space Audits, I don't know where he's
44:21getting his numbers from, right? And I
44:24don't know where these people are
44:25getting their numbers from, but I know,
44:26well, I do know, but I'm not going to go
44:28into it. Let's just say I don't know. I
44:30know there are credit bullshitters.
44:32They're credit lawyers. They're
44:33deceivers. Do not address these people.
44:35Do not address this guy. Right? He's an
44:38outright deceiver. Right? These people,
44:40right? The longer the more air time you
44:43give these people, the more they'll get
44:45away with bullshitting people because
44:47that's all they want to do. This person
44:49is a lawyer. He's a deceiver. I've shown
44:51this myself. He's trying he's trying to
44:54him and these other false thoughts
44:56surveyor types are trying to make you
44:58believe that things in reality aren't
45:01real and reality is something else
45:02completely. That's what they're trying
45:05to do. Don't listen to them. Don't
45:07believe them. They're to flat,
45:08stationary, and enclosed as is proven
45:11all day, every day. And especially
45:13proven by these people because they need
45:16to hijack it to make up the
45:19that they're then going to try to
45:20gaslight you and your family members and
45:23your loved ones and your friends with.
45:24And don't forget that cuz that's what
45:26people like this Allen guy, the space
45:28audits and these fault surveyors, that's
45:31exactly what they're trying to do.
45:34That's their whole purpose in life. Make
45:37no mistake about it. There's not
45:38ignorance on this guy's part of the
45:40space audits. There's not stupidity.
45:42This is direct deception. And I know
45:45this because I've had dealings with him
45:46in recently. And I know what happens
45:48when he's corrected on something. And I
45:50know what he does and what he doesn't
45:51do. So, thanks for watching the video. I
45:54know it's long, but I needed to go
45:56through that because otherwise you're
45:58going to have more and more of these
45:59ballers pumping out this complete horse
46:02manure that's completely false. and
46:04they'll be doing nothing but showing you
46:06page after page of of numbers and
46:10spreadsheets of this that and the other
46:11thing when what they're actually doing
46:14is hijacking elements of reality and
46:16hijacking a flat earth. That's what's
46:18actually going on. This rubbish was
46:20dealt with over 10 years ago and now you
46:23have people like this base audits
46:24bringing back this rubbish again and
46:26he's not even a surveyor. At least bring
46:27So he's not even a surveyor. At least
46:29bring out a surveyor who would put their
46:31name to it. you know, put their name to
46:33this rubbish.
46:35You know, they you won't find them. They
46:36disappeared.
46:38Kowski disappeared because he knew
46:40better.
46:42Thanks for watching.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Globe Liar, Proves the Earth is Flat by Brian's Logic, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 7,778 words across 1,099 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.