The Instigator
mscottveach
Pro (for)
The Contender
SilverishGoldNova
Con (against)

The Mainstream Heliocentric Model is Correct

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
mscottveach has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 478 times Debate No: 105810
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)

 

mscottveach

Pro

I see that you keep looking for a real debate with your longish cut-and-paste but for some reason people are not really responding to it.

Hit me with the long version in reply to this and I'll give you the debate you're looking for... we'll jump straight into it.
SilverishGoldNova

Con

I accept this debate. I will prove that the Geocentric model is correct. My opponent must prove the heliocentric model is correct. Since my opponent is willing to respond to my long playlist, I'll go ahead and link it.

https://www.youtube.com...

This video and afterwards.

Secondly, looks like YouTube removed one of the videos. Here is an article making a similar point:

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com...
Debate Round No. 1
mscottveach

Pro

# **Here Comes the Sun**

So, this video starts by describing one of the FE models.

It also happens to be a perfect example of the ad hoc approach that FE'ers take.

There are a lot of ways to prove that this model is incorrect, here's one:

The spherical sun acting like a spotlight creates a timezone problem. At 7am in NYC it's daylight. It's also daylight in Argentina at that time. Argentina is about ~12,000 miles due South of NYC. At this same moment, it's 4am in Los Angeles and it's still dark there.

There's no way for that model to reflect this reality.

Try it yourself. Draw a circle of light of any size you like on the map and try to make the above scenario happen. You'll discover that basic geometry prevents this from ocurring.

On a spherical Earth, it's easy to make happen.

The second half of the video spends a lot of time trying to show that size changes of the sun and its coverage glow prove that the sun isn't 93M miles away.

This topic is another perfect example of the kind of thinking errors that lead to FE beliefs.

In principle, it sounds pretty reasonable. The guy clearly shows us that the sun looks like it changes size. And he points out, quite correctly, that a cause of apparent size change is perspective but only at close distances. He also correctly points out that the coverage of sunset glow shrinks from either side of the sun inward toward the sun. He correctly states that sunlight should be hitting the entire Earth evenly if the sun is 93M ways.

If someone isn't trained to think logically or sceintifically, it's easy to see why all of that sounds compelling.

But the mistake he's making is assuming that the only way the sun could appear to change size is through perspective.

And that's incorrect. Light flaring will also make he sun look bigger and smaller. Moreover, on several videos you can even see that the shape of the sun like a four-pointed star... to my eye, that's obviously flare. Does he think the sun is moving away from us and changing shape too?

Turns out that you can remove the flare to see if the true sun changes size. You can see Wolfie doing it here: https://www.youtube.com...

@8:35 when he says the sunlight "shrinks"? That effect is caused by the fact that he's inside the atmosphere. Think about how a sunset works. The light hits the atmosphere parallel from all over. The atmosphere scatters it and separates it into wavelengths. In the case of sunlight, more red makes it through than other wavelengths. Wherever you are in the world if you're facing directly West at sunset then you're going to see more at the point you're looking than far to either side of you. Why? Because the light where you're looking has the shortest distance, least amount of atmosphere and least amount of angle change to reach your eyes.

The light hitting atmosphere say way north of you, has a lot more atmosphere to get through to reach your eyes and has to be deflected to a much more unlikely angle.

**The most undeniable proof of the Fleat Earth SUN! Mindblowing Clip!**

Wow. Not only does this clip not show what it thinks its showing. It actually shows the opposite.

The FE model claims that distance plus perspective are the reason why we lose sight of the sun. This experiment shows us a very good example of what a sunset looks like -- and it looks very much like a disc that is occludded by a horizontal line starting from the bottom and moving up.

They then try to replicate this by moving a disc away from our view over a table without changing height. The experiment does indeed seem to show us something that looks a lot like the sunset.

But there's a pretty big problem here. In the experiment with the table, our point of view is below the surface of the table...

...BUT in the real world, our point of view is NEVER below the horizon line. In the FE model as the sun recedes away from us, it should appear to move closer and closer to the horizon line but never be able to reach it. That follows from the definition of how perspective works.

So the part in this video where the bottom half of the sun was blocked by the table? What would be the equivalent of that on a flat plane? It can't be the plane itself because we're standing on that.

If we had placed the camera on top of the table. Or even imagine you were six inches high and standing on the table, then the experiemnt wouldn't have worked. If you were six inches high, you'd have to jump off the surface of the Earth and stand below it to see this effect work.

**Flat Earth - The Sun Explained**

SO, this is just another video describing the supposed model. My earlier argument about the timezone problem applies. As do my arguments to the previous video.

According to this model, the circle that the sun takes each day gets smaller and smaller toward summer and gets larger and larger toward winter. It also says that that once circuit takes 24 hours.

If this were true, it would mean that the sun's linear velocity must be much slower in summer and it must be much higher in winter. Just look ing at the image at 2:01, the distance that the sun has to cover in Winter is more than double the distance in summer. So the sun should be moving twice as fast.

But we can see that the sun moves at the same speed everyday.

This model does not allow for sunsets. If you look at a California sunset you see a very clear shape. The diameter of the sun remains the same. It begins to dip below the horizon without any change to the size of the sun's shape and when it's halfway down we see a clear semi-circle. None of this could be observed if this was merely perspective. Which means sunsets as we see them wouldn't happen on this model.

Also see response to first video.

**How the sun and moon work over the FLat Earth model**

Hilariously, if you look, I've already refuted a lot of these videos when they came out. I have months/years old comments on a lot of them.

Before I respond to this one's main point - look at the footage at 3:06. Rob calls that "getting smaller" but if that's what is actually happening there it's not getting smaller because of perspective. Perspective doesn't' change the shape of an object like that. Perspective doesn't cut squeeze just the bottom half and leave the top half alone. Why a FE plays this video and ignores that is beyond me.

So, his actual argument starts at 4:21. Two things...

The magnification exaggerates the perspective phenomenon but notice how he didn't' actually show the sun setting? Because it still won't ever disappear over the horizon from bottom up.

And then did you see how in the upper left videos he subtly but without mentioning it added in barriers that were above our eye-line? Same thing the table guy was doing. That doesn't work as a model of reality.

**TRUTH #7**

Did this video even make an argument?

**ANTARCTICA VIDEO**

So, basically everything being asserted about Antartica is false. You can read the treaty here: https://www.bas.ac.uk...

Show me where it says you're not allowed to go.
You are allowed to go.

"The dollar value of the resources is too high to ignore."
Says who? What is it? According to this, it's not worth the cost;
http://discoveringantarctica.org.uk...

There are bunch of throwaway lines after that. ANy in particualr you want to defend?

**THE DUBAY BLOG ENTRY**

Again, perfect example of how unhinged the FE'ers are... basically, Eric Dubay has no idea what actually happens in the real world. He's so mixed up in that blog entry it's comedic.

He wrote, "If the Earth were actually a spinning globe revolving around the Sun, the only place such a phenomenon as the Midnight Sun could be observed would be at the poles."

Apparently, he's not aware that the Earth has an axial tilt. But it does. And that's why his sentence makes no sense.

Then later her writes, "In typical reverse-engineered damage-control fashion, trying to explain away the Midnight Sun, problematic Arctic/Antarctic phenomena, desperate heliocentrists in the late 19th century again modified their theory to say the ball-Earth actually tilts back 23.5"

Wait a minute. If he knows that the GE model involves an axial tilt then in what universe does he think it's not intellectually dishonest to have written early that the concept is impossible because we can't see through land?

That kind of rhetorical approach should be a giant red flag to you and anyone else stumbling onto Dubay.

Oh, but he says we only came up with that because we were trying to explain away the midnight sun. That was pretty unfair of us... just trying to weasel out of facing the truth like that! Pretty amazing we had the foresight to do this before we discovered the midnight sun though, don't you think:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...

Bro, Dubay is the worst of the worst. He's not only wrong. He's willing to lie in an effort to convince people.

He wrote, "Heliocentrists also cannot explain why the Midnight Sun phenomenon is not experienced anywhere in the Southern hemisphere at any time of year."

Uh, say what now? Now, Eric is claiming it doesn't happen in the South? These aren't even clever lies. He's just asserting random stuff in order to hopefully confuse people and support his case.

Of course, the southern pole DOES experience it... "The midnight sun is a natural phenomenon that occurs in the summer months in places north of the Arctic Circle or south of the Antarctic Circle, when the sun remains visible at the local midnight."
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Once realize how deceptive FE proponents are you'll start checking and double-checking their claims and quickly discover that the only people who believe them are the people who don't do
SilverishGoldNova

Con

Re 1. Here comes the sun

My opponents first arguments is time zones. Not the classic "time zones are impossible on a flat Earth", but the pattern of timezones. He claims I should draw a circle on a flat Earth map, and it will show that certain time zones incorrectly. This video shows other wise.

https://www.youtube.com...

Re 2. Sunsets

The argument is, when the sun is first setting or rising, it appears to get smaller or larger, as a result of perspective on a flat Earth. That video shows a timelapse of the sun rising from 11 AM to 4 PM. This does not give an accurate result.

Re 3. Mindblowing clip

I believe the same guy has addressed your concerns with his experiment

https://www.youtube.com...

Re 4. The sun explained

My opponent claims his previous arguments apply, and is also claiming that the explanation for seasons is incorrect. Now, I believe I have found a better explanation for seasons. Here you go https://www.youtube.com...

Re 5. How the sun works

Keep in mind at 3:06, the sun is setting, not changing shape. Perspectivve will naturally cause it to begin disappearing over the vanishing point.

https://i.pinimg.com...

Re 6. Arctic sun

My opponent makes no attempt at refuting Eric Dubay's article, instead going off on a rant about Eric Dubay. Well mostly, then explains the whole thing with "the Earth has an axis", which was already refuted in that very article.
Debate Round No. 2
mscottveach

Pro

#1
So, I watched this video but it didn't address my counter-example. You said, "He claims I should draw a circle on a flat Earth map, and it will show that certain time zones incorrectly. This video shows other wise."

Where in the video does it correctly show the timezone between NYC/ARGENTINA/SF. Did you actually watch this video with an eye toward that timezone situation?

Again, just freeze-frame that video if you want and try to draw the circle with your finger. You cannot draw a round circle of light such that it's dark in SF while light in Argentina and NYC. The diameter of the circle of light needed to hit both Argentina and NYC will automatically be so large you catch SF as well.

You could distort a map to make it work maybe but what's key is that the distances between the cities needs to be maintained.

#2
No, the video I linked showed that apparent changes in size of the sun are the result of flaring and can be eliminated by a filter. Furthermore, if the size of the sun does not change from 11am to 4pm then the size of the sun is not changing thanks to perspective.

Remember, perspective tells us that if the sun is moving closer to us it gets bigger and if it moves away from us it gets smaller. According to the FE model, from 11am to 4pm it does both things. And yet that video shows the size doesn't change at all. Without the filter the size SEEMS to change but that's because of flaring. So the result of that video is that size changes in teh sun aren't size changes they're light flaring.

#3
But you're missing the point of what it means to debate. You saw that video and you felt it was compelling evidence. I explained why it was broken. Do you agree? Disagree? Why?

The video that you have linked as his response? Did you watch it? Do you agree with him?

He says that he had to put the camera below the table because he's simulating what it is like for us in real life... he says that in real life we are "always below the horizon." That's his argument.

I can't think of any possible way to interpret that sentence "We are always below the horizon" that would make it true. Can you?

#4
You wrote, " and is also claiming that the explanation for seasons is incorrect." Uh, no I'm not. I didn't say anything about the explanation of seasons. I pointed out the model described in the video implies a speed changes that we don't see.

Did you see the problem? Are you agreeing with me that it doesn't work?

And what's this video? You're abandoning your previous video and giving me a different video now? I'll watch this but don't you think now you need to roll up your sleeves and defend these videos with your own words?

#5
You said, "Keep in mind at 3:06, the sun is setting, not changing shape."

Uh, I think you've gotten confused. I mean, what I just quoted is correct. The sun is setting and not changing shape.

BUT the video I was responding to claims the opposite. The video says that this is not the sun setting over the horizon but rather this is the sun changing shape for some reason. I mean, bro, come on, it's literally written across the 3:06 freeze frame. The video text says: "Watch the sun get squashed as it reaches the convergence line."

Which is obviously not what's happening. This is the kind of nonsense that FE'ers have to say to try and explain away the observations of the real world.

"Perspective will naturally cause it to begin disappearing over the vanishing point."

It will not sink into the horizon though, agreed?

Look at your perspective diagram. What it tells us is that the a shape will get smaller but keep it's relative proportions. Squashing? No.

#6
"My opponent makes no attempt at refuting Eric Dubay's article, instead going off on a rant about Eric Dubay."

Dude. Did you actually read what I wrote? I did refute the article. Why would you claim I didn't? And I'm not sure it counts as a rant. I was explaining why Dubay is such an terrible source to use.

So, your entire response to my specific refutations is to just deny they exist? Huh?

Dubay makes claims that are untrue because he assumes there is no axial tilt. So all of those claims are refuted by the existence of the axial tilt, agreed?

Now, maybe I didn't connect the dots for you enough so let's do that.

In the second half, Dubay asserts that there is no axial tilt. He says and I quoting him, "In typical reverse-engineered damage-control fashion... ...desperate heliocentrists in the late 19th century again modified their theory to say the ball-Earth actually tilts back 23.5 degrees on its vertical axis, thus explaining away many problems in one swoop!"

First of all, this is not an argument. It's an assertion with no evidence or justification. There's a very real sense in which I shouldn't even have to respond to assertions without evidence or argument but I'm a nice guy and so I gave you evidence that the axial tilt was discovered in BC. Twice. That directly contradicts and thus disproves Eric's above claim.

But you want to say I didn't attempt to refute him? I just ranted? Are you serious, bro?

Then Eric argues that the axial tilt can't be true because otherwise the Midnight Sun would be experienced in the Southern Hemisphere.

Did I not refute this too? Was I busy ranting? Oh, wait, no, I explained that what we see is that the Southern Hemisphere does experience a Midnight Sun. And I linked to evidence of this phenomenon.

Why am I having to repeat the same refutations over again? If you're going to write that I didn't refute anything then I had better not be able to say a word. Much less bring up all these counter-examples. C'mon, now.

How many lies in that article does one need to expose before it's time to stop using that article? Hint: we've passed the number alrady.

If you want to debate one of Eric's lies then identify it and argue for it. Make a case.
SilverishGoldNova

Con

1. Time Zones

Actually if you watch the video, you will notice that the time zones you listed are possible here. He further admits that no map is 100% accurate, but is trying to use a map as his argument.

Around the 20 second range, btw.

2. The sun changing size.

The video does not state that the sun is constantly changing size, just during the end of a sunset and the beginning of a sunrise, again, such as this example.

https://gyazo.com...
https://gyazo.com...

I don't think my opponent understands what I'm saying, so I will give a longer explanation. At 11 PM, which is almost noon the sun is nearly directly overhead. The video was taken in May. During that Month, the sun typically does not set until around 8 PM. I have no clue where Wolfie is from but lets use an example, the city I live in.

https://www.timeanddate.com...

3. The response to my opponents concerns.

My opponent is simply dismissing his statements. Next

4. Seasons

The video isn't claiming that seasons are caused by the sun changing speed, the video is instead claiming that seasons are caused by the sun moving its path. Please try harder.

5. 3:06.

I believe you are the confused one here. He isn't arguing that the sun is changing shape, he is arguing it is getting quashed.

https://gyazo.com...

See what I mean?

6. Eric Dubay Rant

Yes, almost your entire argument was a rant. You spent a long time claiming that he was a liar and confused, brought up the axis argument, and then dismissed a couple more of his statements.

Here is his explanation

"In typical reverse-engineered damage-control fashion, trying to explain away the Midnight Sun, problematic Arctic/Antarctic phenomena, and the fact that Polaris can be seen approximately 23.5 degrees South of the equator, desperate heliocentrists in the late 19th century again modified their theory to say the ball-Earth actually tilts back 23.5 degrees on its vertical axis, thus explaining away many problems in one swoop! If it simply tilted the same direction constantly, however, this would still not explain the phenomena because after 6 months of supposed orbital motion around the Sun, any amount of tilt would be perfectly opposite, thus negating their alleged explanation for Arctic/Antarctic irregularities. To account for this, heliocentrists added that the Earth also "wobbles," in a complex combination of patterns known as, "planetary nutation," the "Chandler wobble," and "axial precession" which, in their vivid imaginations, somehow explains away common sense."
Debate Round No. 3
mscottveach

Pro

#1
You reassert that it shows the valid timezone but it doesn't. First of all, at timecode 0:20 the sun is on the wrong side of the world. I let it play forward to where it might be as you say and it doesn't work.

You can't just assert false things and expect ti to be compelling.

Moreover, it's a geometric impossibility. If the circle is large enough to cover a vertical distance of 12,000 miles then you can't cover the vertical slice that includes NYC and Argentina without also capturing California. Draw the circle. You don't even have to upload it or anything. Just try it on your own and be honest.

#2
"The video does not state that the sun is constantly changing size, just during the end of a sunset and the beginning of a sunrise, again, such as this example."

No, what are you suggesting? That perspective only happens during sunset? The video focuses on sunset but the argument is that the sun's size is decreasing because the sun is moving away form us. The argument invokes perspective. But if the sun is changing size due to perspective then it has to be changing size all day long. Look at the model. No matter where you are in the world, the sun is either moving toward you, or moving away from you. So perspective has to apply at all times.

"I don't think my opponent understands what I'm saying, so I will give a longer explanation. At 11 PM, which is almost noon the sun is nearly directly overhead. The video was taken in May. During that Month, the sun typically does not set until around 8 PM. I have no clue where Wolfie is from but lets use an example, the city I live in."

Uh, you're right. I don't understand what you're saying there. I assume you mean AM but this is what you've "explained":

- 11 am is almost noon
- The video was taken in May
- The sun typically sets at 8pm in May.

So what's your argument?

#3
"My opponent is simply dismissing his statements. Next"

I already showed that his example is broken because he's artificially occluding the horizon.

He assertion that the horizon is above our head is unhinged. I could assert to you that the Earth only exists in my head and is round because that's how I imagine it. At some point, it becomes silly.

You're not defending it but you seem like you're not willing to concede is obviously false so here you go:
He provides no evidence or argument. He just asserts an obviously untrue thing. So my counter-assertion of "No, it doesn't" meets his evidential burden. An argument that absurd isn't being made in good faith but if it help you understand then how about this: the horizon has no mass, without mass it cannot occlude light, if cannot occlude light then he cannot simulate it with a table.

#4
"The video isn't claiming that seasons are caused by the sun changing speed, the video is instead claiming that seasons are caused by the sun moving its path. Please try harder."

Dude. You are so confused right now. What you wrote makes no sense.

1. I'm aware the video attempts to discuss the seasons.
2. My argument has nothing to do with the seasons.
3. My argument takes two claims made by the video and points out that they logically imply a contradiction with reality.
4. My argument has nothing to do with the seasons.
5. The video makes two claims:
a. The sun always completes one circuit in one day.
b. The sun's circuit shifts toward the center and away over the course of a year.
6. I took those two facts and noticed that they mean that the sun must be speeding up and slowing down.
7. Why? Because sometimes it completes the small circle in one day. And sometimes it's completing the large circle in one day. The circumference of the outside circle is much higher than the inside circle.
8. If the sun travels the outside circumference in the same time it travels the inside circumference (1 day), then it must be traveling faster when it's on the outside and slower when it's on the inside track.
9. This speed differential is not observed in real life. Thus, the model is refuted.

And, bro, the snipes don't help your case.

#5
"I believe you are the confused one here. He isn't arguing that the sun is changing shape, he is arguing it is getting quashed. See what I mean?"

Uh, no, I don't see what you mean. Do you not know the definition of squashed? Here, I just looked it up: "crush or squeeze (something) with force so that it becomes flat, soft, or out of shape."

He's saying that the sun is being squeezed so that it's shape changes from a sphere/disc to flat. That's changing shape. What the heck do you think he's saying?

#6
"Yes, almost your entire argument was a rant. You spent a long time claiming that he was a liar and confused, brought up the axis argument, and then dismissed a couple more of his statements."

Are you being intentionally deceptive here? You realize you can go look at what I said. So for the third time...

You cut and paste and explanation I have disproven twice. See this line in the middle? "...desperate heliocentrists in the late 19th century again modified their theory to say the ball-Earth actually tilts back 23.5 degrees on its vertical axis.."

Now, go back to my first argument and look at my answer where I provide you a link that directly refutes this assertion of Eric's. He assertion is without evidence. I show you research that proves the axial tilt has been known since B.C.

He claimed that the antarctic didn't have a midnight sun. I provided you proof that it did have a midnight sun. Did you actually follow any of my links? Do you know what the difference between dismissing and refuting is?

Did you really have the gall to tell ME to try harder? SMH.
SilverishGoldNova

Con

1. It's a bit off but still, you are basing your entire time zones argument off of an assumption and on a map. Even then there are a number of maps of a flat Earth.

https://gyazo.com...

Like this one

So, don't claim you've debunked the flat Earth by showing something is wrong on a map.

2.

"- 11 am is almost noon
- The video was taken in May
- The sun typically sets at 8pm in May. So what's your argument?"

My argument is therefore, it cannot be an accurate representation. As I've already said.

3.

Well, I'd say dismiss is a bit harsh. However, you aren't attacking the actual argument part, just his experiment, which he explained and you are not addressing.

4.

If you have no interest in further discussing seasons then I won't

5.

You have succesfully proven that he used the wrong word, not his arguments wrong. I need a rebuttal to the argument, not an explanation to how he used the wrong word.

6.

So, if people have measured the axis in the B.C, the explanation for the axis must be incorrect, since he said that it wasn't measured until the 19th century? You are continuing to attack arguments based on wrong words or wrong dates. I need an explanation to the whole thing, not just the "quash" part of the last argument or the "19th century" part of the axis rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SilverishGoldNova 6 months ago
SilverishGoldNova
Rip.... oh well. Sure we can debate it in the comments a bit if you want...
Posted by mscottveach 6 months ago
mscottveach
Ooops. I got distracted. I'll just do a short follow-up for closure. Feel free to do the asme.

I - What I've done is debunked all the arguments being made using that map, which were numerous.

2. Not sure what your argument here is...my point is simply that I showed proof the sun doesn't change size based on perspective so therefore it doesn't change size at sunset or sunrise, that's flare.

3. "Well, I'd say dismiss is a bit harsh. However, you aren't attacking the actual argument part, just his experiment, which he explained and you are not addressing."

His entire argument is: this demonstrates proves that are observation could happen on a flat earth. I showed this experiment does not show that. There is no other argument in that video. So i've refuted eveyrting in the video.

4.

"If you have no interest in further discussing seasons then I won't"
But notice my points still stand. THe model doesn't work. No map for FE works.

5.
"You have succesfully proven that he used the wrong word, not his arguments wrong. I need a rebuttal to the argument, not an explanation to how he used the wrong word."1

No, he's using the right word for his argument but his argument is broken as I said. Listen to the audio. it supports the same point.

6. He simply says false thing after false thing. DOn't forget I showed other ones too. You brought him forward not me. So you made an argument that I showed is wild nonsense since none of it is actually true. The mainstream model is the model that explains everything. It's harder to understand thatn the FE model and if you are one who jumpst o conclusions you might even get confused. BUt it's true and accurate.
Posted by SilverishGoldNova 7 months ago
SilverishGoldNova
Sure, thats fine. In the mean time, I will be studying to address your arguments
Posted by mscottveach 7 months ago
mscottveach
So I've only now just noticed that one of these is 40 minutes long, lol. This stars guy. I'm going to skip this one and if you want to debate it we can make a separate debate for it.

That way we can keep your links to something approximately near 10,000 words.

Cool with you?
Posted by SilverishGoldNova 7 months ago
SilverishGoldNova
Yep
Posted by mscottveach 7 months ago
mscottveach
There's no way to post in sections huh? Once i post the timer flips over to you? I would go ahead and start uploading my responses as I do them but I think I have to wait and add it all at once, is that right?
Posted by mscottveach 7 months ago
mscottveach
Huh. I must have missed that. I'm not a big fan of Dubay. i watched 200 proofs. Participated in a debunking of them all. And have mostly avoided him since then. I much prefer guys like Mark Sargent, Jeranism, DITH... I mean they're all equally wrong but at least those guys seem laid back.

But I do know this: there are no shortage of enemies for that guy. And given how many FE'ers are on youtube I would put my money on that stuff being from one of his many enemies.
Posted by SilverishGoldNova 7 months ago
SilverishGoldNova
The thing is, there was something that happened last year in January. He had his forum taken down for no reason, his facebook accounts and pages were all taken down for "spam" and his group was handed up to a group of trolls who spammed it with death threats.
Posted by mscottveach 7 months ago
mscottveach
Make me wonder what? We know - for sure - in his case what happened. They've made it clear that hate speech is grounds for losing your channel. And Dubay's anti-semitism was hardcore . So, I've been expecting it.

Are you implying that the closing the channel may have been about something else?

I definitely don't think it's about FE.
Posted by SilverishGoldNova 7 months ago
SilverishGoldNova
True, but doesn't the blatant censorship of his views kinda make you wonder?

This debate is on heliocentrism, so I saw no reason.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.