His Most Controversial Interview Ever

Video Transcript:

Welcome to Veritas. Greetings to everyone around the world and we're welcome to another edition of Veritas. At VeritasRadio.com I'm your host, Mel Vambregas. A nice and silly thank you for joining me once again. And if this is your first time or your true journey brought you here, welcome home. According to tonight's special guest, the Globe Earth Lie or what he has titled the Flat Earth Conspiracy is in his humble opinion the greatest deception in human history, a most important taboo issue which desperately needs to be exposed. Tonight's program without a doubt would probably be one of the most controversial interviews I have ever done. As you know from day one of the inception of this very program, My slogan has always been be skeptical but don't close your mind, along with believe nothing, question everything. But most importantly, we treat our guests with respect. Also, when most people tell me not to look somewhere, I mean, neatly compelled to do so. As you know, I like quotes which I read at the end of each program, but tonight I must read two at the beginning to set the stage. The first quote reads, To explore beyond the known is at the core of our DNA and the second by Aristotle. It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. And please, I want to ask a favor of all of you. You can disagree about what you're about to hear, but I ask you to fully listen to what will be discussed tonight, and then do your own research. For months, people were approaching me to discuss tonight's topic, and I will admit that even though I'm very open-minded, I ignored people, deleted emails, and I simply didn't want to hear it. I was too programmed to entertain a new reality. But it wasn't until a friend of this program asked me to please look into it, that I found tonight's guest. And guess what? The more I try to disprove the flat earth, the more I find anomalies with this fear. I didn't expect that. Tonight's special guest is Eric Dubay. He says, quote, The greatest lie a most successful cover-up in history. NASA and Freemasonry's biggest secret is that we live on a plane, not a planet. That earth is the flat stationary center of the universe, unquote. Eric is an American living in Thailand, where he teaches yoga and winch-un, part-time, while exposing the new world order full-time. He is the author of four books and is the president of the International Flat Earth Research Society. His website at plantianconspiracy.com, which is also linked at hours. And directly from Bangkok, Thailand, I would like to welcome Eric Dubay. Hello, Eric and welcome to very-tas. How are you? Great. Hey, Mel. Thanks for having me. Oh, that's great. It's my pleasure. For months, you and I have been in touch. Finally, we get a chance to speak with you because something is happening. A lot of people are looking into the flat earth conspiracy. First of all, how did you, just to me, I didn't want to hear it first. I want to know how did it begin for you? How did you, all of a sudden, awaken to this reality? Yeah, nobody wants to hear it at first. It sounds like the most ridiculous thing. And we've kind of been programmed to think that the idea of a flat earther has been ridiculed for so long that it's programmed into us that that's a ridiculous notion that we should pass right by. But I've personally first started looking into it in my 20s, having never fully bought the globe model. When it was presented to us in school, I remember thinking, wouldn't we fall off the bottom of that spinning ball? Wouldn't the water go over the edges? And of course, the teacher presents you with gravity, the ball earth explanation for everything they can't get around. And gravity is this force that pulls everything towards the center of large masses, they say. So as a result, we're stuck to the ball, the buildings are stuck to the ball, the oceans are stuck to the ball. And that's the explanation you get in school. So I went along to get along, but always had a nagging doubt in the back of my mind. And they started coming across information on geocentrism, which is that the earth is the center of the universe, and everything revolves around the earth. We've been taught the heliocentric model in school, where the sun is the center, and everything revolves around the sun. That was actually updated to what I call the a-centric model, actually, because they say now that even the sun isn't the center, because the sun is only the center of a solar system, and the solar system itself is revolving around the galaxy, and the galaxy is revolving around the universe, so there's many supposed motions that they claim the earth, and the solar system and the galaxy are going under. So once I started researching geocentrism, I started finding proofs for the fact that earth is stationary, and so it couldn't possibly be the heliocentric model. Then as you get more and more into that, you find that not only is the earth stationary, but the supposed curvature that they claim exists, 25,000 miles in circumference, they claim the ball earth is, so there should be a noted curvature of 8 inches per mile squared, going by the Pythagorean theorem and spherical trigonometry. That's the curvature that should be present on a globe, 25,000 miles in circumference, as we've been told, but you just can't measure it anywhere. So there's been experiments taking for hundreds of years trying to find this curvature, and it's just nowhere to be found. The earth's flat as far as the eye can see. So I started reading some of these old flat earth books from the 19th century by authors like Samuel Robotham, William Carpenter, Lady Hunt, Gerard Hickson, Thomas Winship, and some others, these were old flat earthers back in the 1800s. And I was quite surprised to see that they had plenty of proofs and evidence for their model, flat earth model. And over time, come to become a flat earther myself. So now, as you said, I'm the president of the International Flat Earth Research Society, and I've written a couple of books on it. So that's my up, but we can't take it quite a while. I spent over a lifetime, but like I said, I never fully bought the model, so I wasn't like one of these kind of NASA science guys that's really into what they say, or whatever, right from the get-go, I already had my questions. So that nagging doubt in my mind was always there. I'm still searching, I'm still looking, and like I said at the beginning, the more I try to disprove it, the more I come back to it and cannot explain this fear. So this is really bothersome. So since May, which is when you and I made contact for the first time, I've been writing a lot of notes, so it's going to seem as if I'm jumping around, but I have two months worth of notes because I've exposed myself to a lot of information. And I hope that at the end of the interview, a lot of people can at least wake up to the reality that what we've been taught in school, what is the first thing you see when you go to preschool or even kindergarten or first grade, the first thing you see, it's that big blue ball that they have there. In fact, I've been collecting them for years, and now when I see them in my office and in my studio, I question that. But Eric, what are they hiding from us and why? Why can't independent explorers travel to the north and south poles, and military vessels patrol the areas and uphold restrictions by force? Why is that? Well, there's Arctic and Antarctic treaties, and so independent explorers aren't allowed to go to the north pole or the Antarctic. I would say that reason is because of the flat earth, and they don't want this to get out. So in the flat earth model, the north pole is the only pole that's in the middle Antarctica, instead of being a tiny continent on the bottom of the ball, is actually up surrounding us 360 degrees. And so, regardless of whether you're on a ball or a flat plane, it's the case that if you travel south in a straight line from any direction, you'll end up in Antarctica at an ice wall. So in the flat model, that's all around you. Now, people have tried to go there independently, and they've been stopped by military vessels, put in jail, find Yarla and the Huynes, an example of this. So they just don't want you to go there. The only way you can go there is on their special pre-approved scientific missions. So why don't they want us to go there? Is because if you're able to go to the north pole or Antarctica, then you're able to take a compass and find out if you're actually there. Part of the deception is that they've told us there's a geomagnetic pole. There's a dipole, and there's the geographic pole. Geographic pole, they put at 90 degrees on GPS. And so people in documentaries going to the north or south pole, they'll be on a plateau of ice walking, the mustache full of ice, about GPS, and it'll show 90 degrees. And they say, we're here, hurry, we're at the north pole, we're at the south pole. Nobody ever pulls out a compass. Of course, you know, the north pole is magnetic. And all compasses go towards it. You won't see any clip of someone at the north or south pole pulling out a compass to prove that they're at the north or south pole. You should be able to walk in a circle and north would be in all directions. And that way you can show that, yes, you truly have found the magnetic north pole. But their excuse is that the poles are constantly moving, so they're not actually at 90 degrees. So none of these documentaries ever actually show where the north pole is. And their excuse for this is that in the center of the ball earth, there's molten metal constantly shifting around. So that causes the dipole of the ball earth to constantly move as well. This is just an excuse so that we can't actually prove that their model is incorrect. There is no magnet in nature that has a molten core and that causes the dipole to move around conveniently the way they talk about. But a magnet that does exist in nature is a ring magnet, like in loudspeakers. And this is the magnetism of the flat earth wall where there's one pole at the center. And the opposite pole is the circumferential barrier all the way around. So the south pole is everything around the circumference. That's how a ring magnet works. And that's how the ring shaped earth with Antarctic as the circumferential barrier works. And the north pole in the middle. And so they don't want us to note that. And that's why we've got the Arctic and Antarctic treaties and it's military enforced so that nobody can go out there and prove this conspiracy. However, there are many other ways to prove it. I've just written a book called 200 proofs earth is not a spinning ball. So besides just traveling to the Arctic or Antarctic, there's plenty of proofs that we can do right now backyard to prove that we're not on a spinning ball. At the end of the interview, I'm going to discuss something that I tried for myself. I just came from Mexico. And for years, I was looking at the horizon in the afternoon when the sun was, quote unquote, setting or moving away. And I saw mountains that you can't see during the day. And you would ask the locals, you know what is that? And they would say, well, that's San Felipe, Baja California. And then I found out that that's 80 miles away. How in the world is it possible for me to see that? I have pictures that I've included on the on this on the website so people can see it. But we can discuss that later. But if anybody wants to stay with the old paradigm of the sphere, at least they should question why we're not allowed again to enter that area of the world in North or South Pole. Why is there a multinational agreement still in place since the 1950s? And why are the military forces of the world preventing anyone from entering? The agreement was signed first by 10 countries, including the USA. And now there are 50 unbored. What is that agreement really telling us, Eric? Yeah, I'd say that agreement is telling us that they don't want us to go there because there's something they don't want us to find out. And like you said, the blue ball model that everybody sees, the reason everybody thinks that they're on a spinning ball in the first place is because we've been shown videos and photos of a blue marble they call it spinning around in space. Our actual everyday perspective is of a flat motionless plane. You never see any curvature, you never feel any motion, but we've been shown on every news program, every movie company. Every channel on television basically has a logo of a spinning ball. So it's in our face all the time and it's in every movie. So we just assume that that's what it is. But if we'd never been shown such movies, if we'd never seen a television, if we just used our eyes and our experience and our senses and done experiments for ourselves, we wouldn't ever find that we're on a spinning ball. So they want the propaganda to stay in deep. They don't want us to go independently exploring on our own because then we'd be able to find things out. Like you said, see in the mountain 80 miles off. That should be the mountains should be behind almost a mile of curvature at that distance. And they should also, if you can see them at all, the peaks should be leaning backwards away from you. This doesn't happen. Clouds, hot air balloons, things going away from you. You should lean away if you're on a ball. And they should also curve over with the ball clouds. You should see the bottom of the clouds more and more as they get closer to the horizon if they were curving over a ball. But they don't. So everything just disappears based on perspective. So like when you're looking down a long hallway, you can imagine the roof slowly goes down towards the center point. The floor slowly comes up towards the center point. The right and left walls slowly come towards the center point as well. So our vision, the perspective of our vision, the way it works is like a pyramid shape where the base of the pyramid is at your head. And the apex of the pyramid is at the focal point in front of you at the horizon. So this is what we're seeing when we see a horizon, when we see the clouds tending towards the horizon, and we see the ground tending up towards the horizon. This is just the way that our eyes work. And when you zoom in on the horizon, you can see things from beyond it. The ball model, they tell you that the horizon is where the curvature of the earth begins. But if this is the case, then when you zoom in on the horizon, you should be seeing off into outer space because the earth starts to curve down more and more as you go. In reality, the better zoom lens you get, the more of our flatter you can zoom in. I just got a Nikon Coolpix P900, it's one of the best zoom cameras they've got. This thing is a flat earth proof in itself. You just zoom in on the horizon no matter where you are. And you can take in more and more and more of the horizon. For instance, one old ball earth proof they had was that the ships disappearing over the horizon, the hulls disappear before the mast because that's the ship going over the curve of the earth, they say. But now with technology, telescopes and zoom cameras, we can have a ship completely disappear over the horizon, not just the hull, and use the zoom function to bring the entire thing whole and all right back into view, proving that it hasn't descended over a mass of curved water as they tell us. But in fact, it's just gone beyond our perspective. And with the aid of technology, we can bring things right back into focus. And people will say, well, if that's the case, then I should be able to see clear across the ocean, I should be able to see all the way across the flat earth, if that's the case. But we can, like I said, we can see much further than you could see on a ball 25,000 miles at circumference. But that does not thereby mean that we can see an unlimited distance, especially at the lowest densest level of the atmosphere, atmosphere, in other words, I call it the atmosphere flat. But you can't see far because of the air is not... Part of the atmosphere. Yeah, exactly. Especially at the lowest densest layer. You can imagine the heazy on a humid day, the heaths over a road. That's the same kind of thing that's going to happen on all telescopes that blur out like that before you could zoom in on Antarctica or something. So that's not a disproof of the flat earth that you can't see, thousands and thousands of miles, but you can, however, see hundreds of miles sometimes, like you said. And if you can see this report, it's being able to see almost 200 miles at that distance, there should be like four miles of curvature. So people have seen things that you absolutely should not be able to see on a ball 25,000 miles at circumference. Absolutely. And I was with two scientists while I was seeing that with that telescope, I just used my smartphone. I just zoomed a little bit and I told them, what do you think that is? And one scientist is an engineer. He said, oh, those are clouds. So we waited half an hour and the clouds did not move. All the other clouds moved. The other one is a physician. And he looked at me and he said, you are freaking me out. It's impossible. We should not be able to see beyond what is at five, six miles beyond. And then I showed him pictures of the mountains and I said, if you were actually entering in a boat, you know, going to the coastline. And those were the exact mountains that we saw 80 miles away. People in southern Spain are reporting. They can see Morocco even recently here from the great lakes. They were able to see the Chicago skyline over 120 miles away. And of course, the meteorologist said, oh, that's just a mirror image or something along those lines. Did you see that? Yeah, I think it was 60 miles away. And he called it a mirage. A mirage, exactly. Now, a mirage is a genuine phenomenon that happens. But the picture is inverted when a mirage happens. Exactly. The Chicago skyline was perfectly normal. And a mirage would usually find it well above the actual image. Whereas this image is exactly where it should be right on the horizon. If it was a mirage, it should be somewhere hazy up in the sky or something. But this image is right on the horizon just as it should be. You should be able to see the sear showers on tennis at the bottom, not at the top as they are. Now, they are supposed to be now I'm going to be jumping around. They're supposed to be about what 40,000 satellites above our heads. Is there a space air traffic or space traffic control system for satellites, Eric? So satellites, space stations, astronauts, space travel. This is all part of the ball earth deception. So it's the moving landing and the Mars landing. They've got us thinking that they can suspend people and metal and spaceships and rockets and everything out in the non gravitized vacuum space. They call it out there. So they say that there's atmosphere up to a certain indeterminable point that they've never told us. And this atmosphere at beyond that point becomes non gravitized, non atmosphere. And you just pop out and you can float. So anytime you've gone up in an airplane, a hot air balloon, a rocket, whatever, anything any of us amateurs can send up, no matter what, it goes up. And inevitably it comes right back down. They say that they can send stuff up high enough that it just keeps going up and doesn't come back down. And that's what they claim satellites are doing and the space station is doing. But again, we can't confirm this. Anything we've ever done comes right back down. So we have to take their word that this is possible at all. And when we look at their rockets, this is how they claim they get into outer space is these rockets. Their rockets never go straight up. Every single rocket launch from a government space agency, you'll notice follows a parabolic curve. It goes up. They reach a peak right around 100,000 feet, same place any amateur rocket would reach a peak. You just can't get much higher than that. But what they do is as the rocket starts coming back down, they make sure that it goes down over the ocean out of the way of any curious observers. And as anyone can see it coming back down to Earth asks, hey, how come the rocket's not going up anymore? They say, yeah, yeah, well, it's going around the curvature of the Earth is what they tell us. So every single rocket, the reason that it follows a parabolic curve, they say it's because it's going around the curvature of the Earth. The real reason is they can't get up any higher than that. And even if they could, you think about it, a rocket needs something to push against. So if you're in non-atmosphere, they rocket any sort of propulsion would send you spinning violently like a gyroscope at 380. There's nothing to push against to send you to the moon or to send you to wherever they claim to be going. You just be at the whim of gravity or that the whim of space wind or whatever forces are pushing you, you wouldn't be able to do things that they say they're doing out there in space. What they're really doing is using camera tricks like the movie Gravity. They use green screens and wires. They use zero G planes doing parabolic maneuvers to fake that they're floating out in outer space. And they use dark pools with LCD screens projecting the fake ball Earth to do outside shots in there when they're on their spacewalks as they call it. So just using these simple camera tricks, we've been convinced that they're able to send up rockets into this fake outer space area where you just float around. So satellites are out there in this floaty place. They claim exists hundreds of miles up. We can only get about 20, 30 miles up. And any further than that, we just come falling back to the Earth. They claim that they have their special technology that only they can afford the trillions of dollars of tax money that they fleece from us. So because of that, they're able to get up higher than us to this floaty spot where all these satellites are. Now, in the floaty spot in the thermosphere, it's supposedly 200,000 degrees Celsius. And these satellites are made of gold, aluminum, other metals which all have melting points much lower than this. They get around this saying there's no air there in that there's whatever in the atmosphere so that the temperature doesn't translate onto the metals or something. But they've got an excuse for everything as I've said in other interviews. They literally have a lame excuse for everything you can think of. And I know them all and I can present them to you. But there's also a common sense flat earth explanation for everything as well. People have been exposed to their ball earth excuses for a long time so they're quick to. But they haven't heard of the common sense flat earth explanations. So they quick to ridicule those because all they've ever heard is this. Well, this reminds me of 9-11. We, you know, a good friend, Dr. Judy Wood she wrote the book where the detours go. She's a, you know, she has a PhD on, you know, engineering, mechanical engineering. And she has written the only book it's almost. You have to see it in a university to see it's 300, 400 pages long. And everybody really kills her without even reading the book. The same thing I say with anybody who wants to discuss the flat earth. Listen to what we are discussing tonight before you discount everything because that's your programming doing its thing. It happened to me a few, a few months ago. But you know, recently I spoke with Bart Cybrel. He's the producer of the documentary. A funny thing happened on the way to the moon. He's going to be with us in a few weeks. And he interviewed one of the Apollo astronauts and basically mentioned the Van Allen belt. And now we found out that there's not only one but only five layers. So he told the astronaut how were you able to go through the Van Allen belt and the answer was, well, we haven't discovered it back then. That was the answer that he got. Well, yeah, if you haven't discovered it, it can't affect you. It's just like the white coyote when he falls off the cliff. It doesn't actually fall down until he realizes that he's gone over the cliff. This is how NASA works. NASA stands for a never a straight answer. Talk to you now. Exactly. Now we're told satellites are real. Why are we dropping thousands of miles of fiber optic cables around the planet if satellites are real Eric? All right. And why are we building all these cell phone towers all over the place if we've got satellites giving us cell capabilities? Everything is done ground based. Like you said, they've got fiber optic cables going across the oceans. They've got cell towers set up everywhere. So even GPS is just triangulated cell phone towers. So satellites are not necessary for anything that we do. They look at TV dishes. Almost none of them are facing more than 45 degrees upwards because they're receiving signal from a ground based tower. If we're actually receiving signals from these geo stationary satellites hundreds of miles up, then most TV dishes should be pointing straight up all over the world. That's true. Never thought about that. Now, why are ships? What are ships in the middle of the ocean far from from land using van if satellites are not real? Right. Well, long before there was GPS, military had systems like Loran and Deca. And these are ground based navigation systems that they were using for decades. And they worked just fine. So I mean, this kind of propagation has been working long before the supposed advent of satellites, by the way, which were invented by a science fiction, free Mason, as free Mason science fiction writer Arthur C. Clark, he wrote about the geo stationary satellite and the science fiction novel, then became science fact shortly thereafter. But another thing about these, they call them geo stationary because they say that the earth is spinning like a thousand miles an hour. And up there where the satellites are, the atmosphere is stuck to the spin through gravity. So the satellites themselves are spinning at like 10,000 or 15,000 miles per hour, but they're stuck in orbit in the exact same spot relative to the earth over which they are. This is interesting because people claim that they can see satellites moving across the sky or guys with telescopes. Really, all you can see is a light moving across the sky, but they'll say it's a satellite, but then it's supposed to be geo stationary. If satellites truly are geo stationary, then they should be just a pinpoint of light that does not move ever. And you can see it in day after day and night, after night, year after year in the exact same spot. But that's not what people are seeing when they say, oh, they're just satellite. I mean, they may see planes, drones or other unidentified flying objects moving across the night sky, but you're definitely not seeing a geo stationary satellite moving. And like I said, there's nothing up there floating around in outer space anyway. So, you know, if something's moving across the sky, it's flying. It's not floating. When we think of maps, Eric, we think of the US and GSD, United States Geological Survey. Why do they use the flat earth map? Right. Yeah. The USGS actually uses the azimuthal like a distant map, which is a flat earth map projection. And the UN, the United Nations, their logo is a flat earth, strangely divided into 33 Masonic sections. So, why is the UN, the USGS? Why are these things, these official organizations using a flat earth map as their official map? Why does NASA admit to using geocentric calculations for their rocket launches? Why is the official 1892 map, Gleason's, a flat earth map? You can check it out. People have found it in the Boston Library and other libraries. There's plenty of flat earth maps, Markator, the guy that gave us our projection map that we use in schools today. His 1569 map is a flat earth map showing the North Pole being a magnetic mountain, something that has never shown nowadays in our maps. They just say the North Pole is a bunch of ice in the middle of an Arctic sea. In his map, it shows that there's these whole like island continents around the North Pole that don't exist on modern maps. And there's a magnetic mountain right at the middle. That doesn't exist on any map nowadays. So, this is some interesting secrets in historic cartography if you look back at ancient maps. In fact, pretty much every map before the 1500s has a flat earth map. This ball globe deception, this idea that we're on a ball, it's only been around for the past 500 years or so before that, pretty much every map in existence was a flat earth map. Why do we use the Markator projection when it's proven that it's in Corregates Falls and the Correg one is the Peter's projection map? Yeah, so there's a much better projection that golepeters, which has the continents, the sizing of them relative to one another and each other more precise. I still wouldn't say that's the right map. Then the Markator, and we've known this for a long time, so why do they use that? Well, I would say the answer is that they're deceiving us regardless, even the gallpeters map is a deception. And I wonder about the as a month of liquid distant. I wonder about even the old flat earth maps since we've been lied to so much. I'm not sure that we have a completely accurate map anywhere, though I recommend looking at the Eglissons 1892 map and the Hammond's air age map. There are a few flat earth maps that are very detailed. I'd like to see some modern cartographers take a look at this and see how much more detail we can get. But the flat earth maps absolutely describe the earth we're living on much better than any of these ball models. Oh, absolutely. But the Peter's projection, where is the white wire, I brought that up? I think it's because anything south of the equator based on the sphere that shows bigger than the north should not be there. In other words, we want the north to always be better and bigger. And that's why when you see both maps, the Peters and the Mercator, you can see the Peter's Africa. It looks huge. South America looks huge. You can fit the United States several times in Africa. And the other one maybe just two two times of the most. Right. Why is that? Because lines of latitude, south of the equator don't get smaller. They get larger. Right. Because we're on a ball or on a flat plane. And so that's why in the Galapeters projection, you see Africa and these other places in the southern hemisphere. They're actually huge. They don't want you to know that because that fits in the flat model. Now, when you're going trying to traverse around Antarctica, like James Clark Ross, Captain Cook, and other early explorers tried to do, it took them three or four years and they traversed 50 to 70,000 miles. We're on the ball model. It should only be about 12,000 miles around Antarctica. I shouldn't take you that long to go around it. But because it's the circumferential barrier around the entire earth is Antarctica. So it takes years to get around it. And it's much bigger than at the equator. The equator would be 25,000 miles in circumference. They say in the ball model. Yet when you're trying to go around Antarctica, it's twice that size as it would be on a flat plane, not on a ball. And these early explorers, they often found they were going on ball projections as well. And they found themselves out of their reckoning more and more every day, the further self they went. So since they're on a ball projection where they're assuming that lines of latitude are getting smaller and smaller as they go southward, in fact, they're getting larger and larger. I'm sorry, it's the space between lines of longitude. And as you can imagine, it would come back in on itself on a ball, or as it would just expand outwards from a flat plane. So the further self you get, you're going to get more and more out of your reckoning. Ships have actually crashed based on this. And it's like a big mystery why in the Southern hemisphere is it so difficult to navigate. And they just chalk it up to harsh winds and sea conditions. And so that they must get off their reckoning based on the harsh seas. But it's really this that they're following false projections. And so they're getting outside of their reckoning all the time. Now the UN map, why don't they show why don't they include Antarctica? Yeah, the UN flag and logo, it's definitely a flat earth projection, but you'll notice there is no Antarctica anywhere. But there is a lower rule that goes around it. So symbolically that that re-thrower well could be the Antarctic going around it. They've just left that off. I think it would probably be a bit too obvious. Actually, they have changed the UN map a couple times. The first UN logo was an exact copy of the Asimothal Aquedisdent map. But they've changed it a little bit to make it look a little less obvious. So I think that's probably what they did with Antarctica as well as they just turned that into the lower, or even around it so that you'd the insiders now just like they divided it into 33 sections. So it looks like there's a bull's eye over the earth over the flat earth and it's divided right up into the 33 sections. As you probably know, it's 33 degrees in Freemasonry. And so that's a sacred number in numerology and they hold that number dear. So that's a little wink, wink, nudge, nudge to fellow Freemasons, but the general populist wouldn't know. Now why why ours, I'm sorry, finish what you're saying. Also, I just saying the lower, or we thought Antarctica could be another wink, so the insiders. Right. And that number 33, as you said, now why are surveyors engineers and architects never required to factor the supposed curvature of the earth into their projects? Yeah, why is that that's surveyors engineers architects. They've written in magazines like the Earth review magazine. They've got a bunch of them on record saying that they never have to factor in the supposed curvature of the earth when making tunnels, bridges, canals, trains, train tracks, the supposed curvature there. This never taken into account. And if there was curvature, absolutely would have to be and it would make their projects impossible. So they've commented on this. I can see it in my book, the flat earth conspiracy or 200 proofs or this not spinning ball quotes from these guys saying how they never have to and how their jobs would be much more difficult, if not impossible, if they did have to factor in such curvature. Now speaking of maps wise, most of the continent of Antarctica unmapped in your opinion. So on the ball model, it's just this little continent on the bottom yet in reality, it's all around us. So there's much more of it than we know and how much there is to Antarctica. I don't know and any independent person doesn't know because we only have gotten as far as that. And nobody independently has had the privilege of going further southwards to see how far south you can actually go. They have a fake south pole station set up that you can take little photo ops and go where they've got a flag and a little ball earth on top of a red and white barbershop poles set up. And they say that's the geographic south pole like I talked about earlier, but you can't take a compass there and walk in a circle and prove that you're at the south pole. And they'll tell you, well, yeah, this isn't the actual south pole. The actual south pole is a little somewhere else indeterminable that they don't know because it's constantly moving. So really what it is is they've just set up a little place in an arbitrary point along the Antarctic ice called it the south pole. In reality, we don't know how far goes perhaps the people who've set up the Antarctic trading the government, Freemasons, the one who've perpetuated this deception from the beginning. I'm sure they know how far it goes whether it ends in a dome in some sort of barrier as ancient cultures have talked about or if there's an edge or if it's an infinite plane that just goes on forever or if there's some other termination of the ice. It's still a mystery at this point, but we know that Antarctic is all around us and it's certainly much bigger than they show in their ball projections. So certainly more land there in Antarctica than we know. So that's another reason that they can't necessarily show us in the map. Even the flat earth projections, they'll show the Antarctic circumference. We know what that looks like. We know what the cliffs saw the little ins and outs, but we don't know how far you can go south. So all the projections inevitably just go to the ice, show all the little imperfections in and out the inlets and outlets and then trace a circle around that. Whether that circle is the dome or whether that circle of arbitrary and it actually extends infinitely is still unknown at this time. And like we said, they've got this Antarctic treaty and this is surely why? Because if any independent explorer decides I'm going to go to Antarctica and just set their course southwards and start walking, they're going to find the answer to this mystery. That's that easy, but it's not that easy if they've got a treaty enforced by military ships patrolling the place put people in jail who try it. So it's a conflict that some some brave explorer needs to run with a U-stream account just go for it. Exactly. Well, we have our own Dr. Brooks, Acknew. He was trying to go to the North Pole first and then he was going to go and believe to the south. And for some reason, he couldn't get that nuclear powered Russian vessel that he was going to get. But Admiral bird, I'm sure you're familiar with his expeditions. He had several expeditions and the last time it was after World War II, he was supposed to go for two months and had to return in two weeks. What do you know about his expedition in relation to the flat earth? I'm a more bird supposedly went to the North Pole and Antarctica and he wrote a diary about some strange happenings that supposedly happened to him while he was there involving giants and UFOs and hollow earth and going inside the earth and Nazi base in the Antarctic and other such things. However, Admiral bird was a Freemason just like all of the people in NASA that started NASA just like all of the astronauts just like Newton, Copernicus, Kepler and all the founding Pythagoras, all the founding fathers of the Heliosentric spinning ball model have been Freemasons. So Admiral bird's testimony and that's all we have is his testimony. There's literally no proof outside of this. I find completely suspect because he was Freemason. So it's an interesting story. You can definitely read it, note it. I'm definitely waiting for some proof on these claims because I don't want to go just on the hearsay of Freemason like some flat earthers are willing to say that Admiral bird said it so it must be true. But just because Freemason said it doesn't mean it's true just like with the baller. Let's move with the evidence not with the rumor. Now if the South Pole or Antarctic is a sheet of ice 360 degrees around us, has anyone done an experiment where two ships meet somewhere and then go in opposite directions around the sheet of ice and then meet on the other half of the circle. Do you know? No, I don't think that has been done nor has a North self circumnavigation of the supposed globe ever been done. We've circumnavigated the earth, but we've done it in an east west around the earth fashion. So nobody has ever actually gone from North Pole to supposed South Pole and back around an airplane or not on a ship you couldn't do it anyway. But they've gone in airplanes and in ships around east to west. They call that a proof of the baller that they've circumnavigated. But really you can do that on a flat plane as well so that doesn't prove anything. They also say that on a ball you should be able to go 10,000 miles in a straight line, take a 90 degree turn, go 10,000 miles, take another 90 degree turn, go 10,000 miles and you should make a triangle over the sphere. Now in one of their videos on YouTube, their popular baller, the videos, they claim that this is a proof of the ball. But this experiment has never been done either. They claim that you go to 390 degree angles, 10,000 miles and you'll be back where you started proving that you're on a spherical, going over a spherical surface, not a flat one. A flat one you'd have to take 490 degree turns to get back. They've never actually done that experiment. Just like they've never actually done a north-south circumnavigation recorded it. So like I said with the bird testimony, any experiment that they claim is a proof but they've never actually performed it and show us evidence, I'm not buying it. Some people say that the earth is an oblite spheroid but take Neil deGrasse Tyson, I'm sure you hear this name all the time. He says the earth is pier-shaped. If that's the case, why haven't we seen a picture of the earth looking like a pier? Yeah, they tell us that the earth is a sphere and they show us pictures of a sphere, of a circle, it's a perfect circle. And then they come out and they say, well it's actually an oblite spheroid. Oh what's that? Well it's a sphere that's flattened at both poles so it's more of an oval shape. Oh, I won't invite you none of your pictures or videos, show an oval-shaped earth. And then Neil deGrasse Tyson, one of their spokesman, he comes out again and he says well it's actually bulges out south of the equator as well as being flattened at the poles. So it's more per-shaped. So now it's per-shaped. So why are all of these official NASA photos and videos showing perfect spheres when it's actually an oblite spheroid or per-shaped spheroid? They can't get their story straight and the reason they keep changing it is that to fit the model they have to change the shape of the earth. The reason they originally flattened it at the poles is because people have done experiments proving that the earth is flatter than they say it is. So they'll just say oh well that's just that latitude that you took the experiment, it's a bit flat over there. But it actually does bulge out the way we say it does. And then like we said, south of the equator is larger than north of the equator because lines sponge it to just extend outwards. They don't contract back. So they can see that in their per-model. They say well the south bulges out south of the equator, it's bigger south of the equator. Yeah it is because it's flat. But instead of admitting that they just make tweaks to their model as time goes on. They say that the ball earth tilts back 23.5 degrees. That's another tweak they made because we can see Polaris which is right over the north pole from 23.5 degrees south latitude. You shouldn't be able to see that on a ball so they just tilt the earth back and then they okay now you can see it. Anything else? So they come up with explanations in reverse like this. Damage control reverse engineer explanations. Just to give excuses like I said they they they they grade at it. They come up with an excuse for everything that is presented to them as a difficulty to their model. But when you just break down their excuses time and time again you start to see how they're just lying. They're just making stuff up so to keep the model going. It doesn't make any sense. The more you actually look into it you see that they're weaving a big myth. And we look into the flat earth experiments and examples you see that this makes sense. This is obvious. You can do this for yourself. These experiments have been done over and over again. Like I said I have 200 proofs there. It's not a spinning ball on my form. We've got many more proofs than that. I challenge you to find any you know, you know, NASA or any ball believer to find 200 proofs that the earth is a ball or spinning. They can't even give you 10. 10 good. I mean they can't even give you one to be on a second. Deepunk every single one. But I mean they can't even come up with fake explanations the way flat earthers can come up with real legitimate explanations. The more you look into it the more you'll see this at first everyone scoffs the flat earth. What the heck is that? Yeah, because you've never heard this before. I'll even ever heard is that flat earthers were dickulous and the spinning ball is obvious. So that's how you're going to react. But I challenge you. You just look into this. Look into this some more. You're going to shift. It's going to become exactly the opposite. You're going to scoff at this stupid spinning ball model. The idea that you've ever believed that this happens and you're going to see how obvious it is that the earth is flat and motionless. Just as it appears to you. Just as it has appeared to everyone throughout all of history. Even President Obama really killed us when he says we don't have time for a meeting with the flat earth earth society. But I found interesting Eric that we hadn't seen a NASA photo of the earth since 1972. The last Apollo mission we saw a few photographs. But years ago something dawn on me that they had different pictures of the rotation. But what struck me a strange was that the clouds were exactly in the same position. And then recently probably saw about three or four weeks ago NASA came up with this new picture of the earth having the moon going around it that looks so photoshopped to maybe you see that. Yes, they called it epic. Epic. I forgot the anagram or whatever the it's. EP I see stands for the name of this satellite that they claim is a million miles away and it just sent them these photographs or whatever. Is it a photograph or video is such a bad video you can't even tell what it was a video. Oh, it's only a video. Yes. Right. But it's just like a flip book of just pictures of them this little gray ball moving over a blue ball. And anyone that's not completely brainwash can see this is an image is a CGI computer generated image. It's not a video and neither are any of their videos. Like you said, do you look at any of these videos that they have of the earth spinning? None of the clouds move. None of the clouds morph. And you can see way too much of the ocean and the earth. If you actually go up in a plane or a hot air balloon, there's this clouds everywhere that varying altitudes. So the earth should be white really. Their image is religion. But yeah, as you're saying, they're actually all computer done. They're not even that good. You look at them next to each other from back in the the 70s up to nowadays. They all look totally different to the shading of the water is different. The clouds are different. The image of the earth has changed as CGI technology has changed. You can see it, you know, the early 2000s. It looks like the men in black style nowadays. It looks like the gravity Hollywood style. They update their ability as time goes on. But it never looks the same in a recent one. I don't know if you saw they put the word sex as it is. I did. Clearly in a cloud formation. Yes, it's laughing at us now. They put things out there for us to see. Like you said, it's for the people with eyes to see. It's the wink wink nudge nudge. So they're laughing at us. And nobody, nobody questions because that little quote, quote, video of the earth with the moon going around it. It's almost as if it's a bad crop of the moon plays there in an animated gif. And you don't see the shadow of the of the moon as it passes in front of the sun. It's terrible. And it gets millions of views and every comment you see people are like, amazing. So you know, our tax dollars will work. And Neil Tyson will say something like, yeah, you know, we brought you this image and it's only costs every American like $7 per year. That's it. So yeah, I'll take my $7 back and stop lying to us. They've taken trillions of our dollars over the existence of NASA. It's like 30 billion just for the fake moon landing. And now they've got Rasa and Jaxa and all these other space organizations propping up all over the world. So they're fleecing their populations of tax money, billions, billions of dollars. And what are they doing with it? They're paying artists to make little CGI renderings and laughing at us and running away to the bank. This is one of the biggest deceptions in history and they're laughing their way to the bank as a result of it. Well, we can go back to 2001 space Odyssey. It took years for Stanley Cooper to do that. And I think that he also had a big hand on the Apollo missions. But when I think of 1939, when Technicolor came along, wow, now you can go to the movie theater and look at watch these movies in color. And then 30 years later, the most sophisticated venture of human for human kind gives us second or third generation black and white. Come on now. And then 45 years later, we still haven't gone back. Exactly. And you would think that if we have been to the moon, there would be some commercialization of the moon. We would have space tourism. We would have people just going there and digging rocks from the moon to sell them planet Earth because we're very, we like to be ventures and ventures and business. You know, why is that not more commercial companies have said, you know what? You don't want to go there? We'll go. I don't know if you know who Jay Whitener is, but he told me that he and somebody else had a production company. They wanted to go and map in 3D the moon years ago. And he called that former friend from NASA and said, Hey, by the way, you just want to let you know so that you know that we're having this rocket and we're going to go up and take, you know, this footage of the moon. And allegedly that man from NASA said, you're not going to the moon. You're never going to the moon. If you launch a rocket, we're going to shoot it out of the sky and don't ever call me again. I don't know if you ever heard that. I haven't. I just watched Jay Whitener's new movie, Kelpie. Have you seen that? That's a good one. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Avatar. Yeah, yeah. Now, a private rocket was launched last year. You probably know this from the Nevada desert 73 miles up. It had a, I think they broke a record. It had a few cameras, but unfortunately they were all fish eye as you know. However, the one thing Eric that was noticed was that the moon was behind. Someone noticed the moon behind the rocket and it plucked the time of launching the German using different computer programs on websites. That the moon was above Australia at the time. It will live in a sphere. It will be impossible to see the moon. If at the time this rocket was launched, the moon was on the other side of the globe. What do you say about that? Right. They tell us that the moon only circles around us once every month. When in actuality, it circles over the earth every 25 or so hours. It makes a complete revolution. The sun and the moon, there are only a few thousand miles above the earth circling over and around it. Whereas they say that the sun is like 800,000 miles in diameter and 93 million miles away. And the moon is, what is it? However, many a hundred thousand miles away. And however, many miles in diameter and they say that that exact size and distance makes them up here to us to be exactly the same size. But in fact, one is really, really big and really far away. One is really close and smaller, so it just appears that way. So they are telling us lies about the sun and the moon and the stars and the planets and everything literally in the heavens anyway. So the fact that we saw that is not at all strange from the slide earth model. But it is inexplicable in theirs. Just as is the fact that the moon goes right over and around us every day, not every month as they claim. Of course, if you ask NASA, they'll say, oh no, that's just a lens reflection, of course. Now, the first thing people ask when confronted with flat earth conversations is, how do you explain the Coriolis effect and the flood earth? So they say that in the North hemisphere and the South hemisphere, water and drains toilets is going to go down in opposite directions proving that the earth is spinning. And the spin is affecting the waters in actuality. However, this is totally debunked by basins in one household going opposite directions. It really is based on the way that the water enters the basin and the way that it's shaped, which way it spirals down and has nothing to do with the Coriolis effect. Coriolis effect very well could just be the ether winds moving around the water. If you look at a diagram of the ocean currents, winds, temperature, you'll see that it's on a globe model. It's going every which way it doesn't make any sense. And you'll find videos on YouTube where they've projected on a flat model or makes perfect sense. Everything goes around in an anti-clockwise motion perfectly around the flat earth model, the Esemothal projection. Just like Polaris sits up over the North Pole and all the stars and the celestial bodies move anti-clockwise over us. Because that's what's actually happening. Because they call it ether or call it an invisible web. There is a connection to all the stars, all the planets. Everything that we see in the sky above us is moving anti-clockwise around Polaris. So this is just a fact of the plane we live on that everything is turning this way. So as a result, this is where we're getting these weather patterns and everything is from this constant turning motion. And it's actually turning constantly in the same direction, whereas on a ball projection, it's going every which way it doesn't make any sense at all. So the weather Coriolis effect makes more sense on a flat plane. And the Coriolis effect that they say is causing spinning water and drains actually is completely doesn't happen that way at all. We have allegedly mapped the far side of the moon. Why not Antarctica if we have thousands of satellites? Why can we travel to the moon where it's much colder and much hotter out there? Then it is in Antarctica. Yet they say we can't fly, circumnavigate and fly directly over Antarctica because it's too cold for the planes. So, you know, like I said, convenient excuses. They're in these flimsy little spacesuits out in space claiming that they're in, you know, 2000 degrees Celsius. Or at night time, it's hundreds of degrees below zero. They're claiming they're in these temperatures that they couldn't possibly be in. Yet meanwhile, they use the exact same excuse for why they can't cross the Antarctic. It's too cold. So what is it, you know? You know, what's up with us not having surveillance in the right places? For example, take the Pentagon on 9-11. The only surveillance video that we saw came allegedly from a gas station where they do, probably, the most protected building in the world. Why don't we have a real-time surveillance camera of the Earth spinning in real-time as a ball in 2015? They show us the ISS camera, that's the closest thing they'll give you. And this is just one of their CGI balls with a little paneling thing to make you think that they're taking it from a space station out in outer space. And you watch the fake sunset. People have done many videos exposing how this is completely fake. So they do have something like that to appease us, but it's not real. You look at these ISS footage videos, and they're using a map projected onto a ball Earth. You can clearly see that this is not a video. You look at the layering, the texturing. Just look at it with open eyes. You've been looking at these videos for so long now assuming that they're real. And like I said, there's millions of views, the comments. Oh, beautiful, amazing stunning. Look at the Earth. And so you think that these are amazing videos of there. Take a closer look. You're going to see that these are just amazing stunning, beautiful CGI's. These are all done on computer. And some of the Hollywood stuff is better. You compare some of these ISS-supposed videos of the spinning ball Earth to the movie Gravity that just came out. Man, the movie Gravity got it a lot better. Pay attention. You'll see how much CGI is being passed off as reality nowadays. You know, I don't know if you know this, but the director of the movie Gravity was in that conference one day, and a reporter. And this is seriously, this is not humorous or a joke. The reporter asked a phone sequiner on the director. Mr. Quadon, how were you able to sustain spending so many months in the space stations filming the movie? And of course, the director laughed about it and he kept answering the question. But even some of the reporters believe that the movie was filled in space. Well, it's just like everybody now believing that that greeny black and white footage of the moon landing was actually filmed on the moon. Even though, of course, it could have been filmed in a studio. And if you heard that the original footage has now all been lost, so we can't even verify those. That's right. So supposedly was founded a McDonald's somewhere hundreds of come on. How much did it cost $38 billion for us to go to the moon and they lost the footage and the proof? Give me a break. They've lost most of the blueprints for the lunar lander and all the vehicles. They've lost the data telemetry tapes that prove that the vehicles have actually gone traverse those hundreds of thousands of miles. So all the physical evidence is gone. Why? Oh, I wonder. Of course, they can't show us this stuff because then when it can be analyzed independently, it can be shown for the fraud that it is. So just like the Pentagon footage, why do we only get like at first we got nothing, then we got five frames with a little thing saying plane. But you couldn't even see a plane. You just see five frames of an explosion. You know, why is that? Obviously because they're lying to us so they can only cover it up by saying things like the camera battery didn't work. Oh, we lost the tapes. Sorry. So that's how they do it. Like I said, excuse after excuse after excuse. They never get no, no liar admits the lie. You just keep going with it. Obviously, especially when you get paid billions of dollars of it in your entire career and reputation and hundreds of year deception is on the line. They're not going to come out and be like, are you got us? Yeah, right. Eric was right, guys. All right. You know, it's flat. Now, they're just going to keep going and keep making up excuses and they've literally been doing it for 500 years. And that's why we've gone from a ball to an obliterate spheroid to a pair. What's next? You know, it's going to be an amoeba. It's an amoeba-shaped earth next. They're going to have to make so many modifications to it. It's going to be like clay and potters wheel throwing it against a wall trying to answer all the flat earth. And the problem is that most people don't ask questions. I remember years after the 9-11, I hate to say attacks, but the event happened when the newspapers headlines came out and said, oh, we finally found a video that shows a plane crashing the Pentagon. No pictures, nothing. It just read that. Most people just saw that. Oh, good. You see, we have the answer. Those conspiracy theorists just go to sleep. Go back to sleep now. But we have to take away on all the intermission. We're just scratching the surface, folks. If this is the first time you've ever heard about this topic being discussed in the 21st century, well, you're in for a big surprise because we have so much more. Well, we return with Eric Dubay, the website at Plantian Conspiracy. And you have a new book out, correct? And some others that you have for sale, Eric? Yeah, I've got five books now, asbestos said, the Atlantic Conspiracy, Spiritual Science, the Flat Earth Conspiracy, and my new one's free. 200 proofs, Earth's not a spinning ball. It's a 35-page PDF with 200 easy to see proofs that the Earth is flat and motionless.