Edited 9/14 Scroll for several pertinent comments, which I’ll update periodically:
1) To saying I didn’t answer his question(s): If someone tells me, ‘Your position is this, now answer me this about your position,’ but what they said is NOT my position, it’s not a valid or honest question. And if you think it is, you fell into a trap, and are arguing a straw man, which I have found to be par for the course with these people đ.
2) To Witsit being wrong/liar: Notice you said, “Lastly, just because someone has said something wrong in the past, it does not invalidate every future thing they say.” Yet Witsit’s position, as I clipped Witsit saying in the debate ironically, is that since the scientists were a little off on the eclipse prediction that they can’t really predict it, are waiting till the Moon gets close, and are just liars. I played that clip at 32:44. And then at 33:25 of this debate Witsit says that he totally stands behind that statement. Therefore, the sounder logic that you are applying to them does not apply with them. Witsit and every flat Earther I’ve ever seen or interacted with have this all or nothing thing to dismiss evidence, for instance, ‘Government has lied, therefore NASA lies since they are part of the government, and SpaceX and whoever else lies because they got government funding or work with government personnel on this or that, therefore all space pics are fake!’ They don’t follow the reasoning you present, so putting such reasoning on them is erroneous. If the scientists being wrong by meters on an over hundred-kilometer shadow makes them liars, as I clipped Witsit saying, then yes, Witsit being wrong about ANYTHING makes him a liar, too. This is something I meant to discuss, which is why I played that clip. However, Iâll talk about this in more detail on MCToonâs channel tonight. And if Witsit changes his point and later says you don’t have to be 100% right on everything, and him failing at having that model and prediction ready doesnât mean we can just discount everything he says, then per his shucking and jiving comment he’s changing and he’s a liar! Either way, he’s a liar, according to himself. And with predictions of for instance the conjunction of Mercury, and the model for it that I challenged him on, he’s 100% wrong, not just a fraction of a percent wrong. He couldn’t do it AT ALL. Thus, it seems you’re letting the obfuscation of the shuckers and jivers like Witsit (according to his own characterization, which I clipped) derail you, which seems to be their intent… I’m a budding scientists. We understand sometimes we’re wrong or make mistakes. It’s Witsit who says if you change, you’re a liar. If you make an error, in so many steps you are a liar. You reap what you sow, seems appropriate.
3) To saying I addressed the person and not the topic: Witsit offered no evidence in his opening. He said a bunch of stuff and provided no references for what he said and referred to. If you think I’m wrong about that please timestamp in his opening where he did. I’ll be checking this thread. Therefore, to suggest there is any topic for me to address from his side is nonsensical. He presented nothing, literally – at least by scientific standards. All he presented is his word, and therefore it’s fair to address his word as there is nothing else to address – as I said during the debate. I am aware that the deluded who follow him believe him just rambling on, and declaring things to be so, is enough. In the wider world by far it’s not enough.
4) Bad paraphrase: “The debate was about relativity and Witsit knows it and talked about it and you don’t know relativity”: The debate was about geocentrism versus heliocentrism. Apparently you’re so upset or so looking for a gotcha that you forgot how to read or something or forgot that that was mentioned during the debate. Moreover, since Witsit doesn’t understand higher math – demonstratably, and according to him (watch the show on MCToon tonight), and I passed all my higher level college math, and I took a survey course that included relativity, that should mean that I understand it better than him.
5) You referenced fairly enough what you meant without needing timestamps:
“your world view was challenged, thats the core of debating, you brushed off many times questions of Witsit ; “its just words” ect. , because you got triggered pretty fast, thats not correct reasoning, you actually treated the debate more as a lecture, to reassure the status quo.”
His opening was literally just words. When I say all he presented was words that is just a simple statement of fact. Witsit presented no experiments or evidence or data. No references for the stuff he said others said. That’s by definition just words. That’s not a challenge to a world view, at least when discussing something objectively true or false. My presentation, that presented actual evidence and experiments and data, that’s a legitimate challenge to a world view. And every source that wasn’t my own work or voice was referenced. I gave an example for you of properly representing a position. It seems you’ve been indoctrinated into thinking the wrong way is the right way.
“For example you said that Witsit thinks every scientist was wrong for hundreds/thousands of years instead of answering, thats fallacious when it comes to logic reasoning and he rightfully pointed out some fallacies himself – at least do it for the audience man, im pretty disappointed when it comes to these “debating styles” of people, many guys(also on this channel) do this, especially when they got the mainstream position, hope that clears things up and you didnt meant that you need timestamps or something like that”
To say that the universe is geocentric, and the Earth is flat, when we – meaning the scientific community insofar as I’m barely a part of it yet but still – hold the solar system to be heliocentric and Earth a globe as just one planet in one solar system at the outskirts of one galaxy – to say it’s flat and geocentric is to say all scientists who say that the Earth is a globe and so forth are wrong. This should not be difficult. It clearly follows. If I say it’s raining outside, and you say not it’s not raining, then it means you’re saying I’m wrong. This shouldn’t be hard to follow. Also, if you’re referring to the fact that I didn’t answer Witsit’s trick questions, I stated very clearly that if someone tells me, âYour position is this, now answer me this about your position,â but what they said is NOT my position, itâs not a valid or honest question. And if you think it is, you fell into a trap, and are arguing a straw man, which I have found to be par for the course with these people. Perhaps get him to be honest and ask an honest question. I doubt you’ll get that. Watch earlier on when I guess he mistakenly asked an honest question about how I know the Earth goes around the Sun or similar. Then he interrupted me answering to change the question and ask and lie and say he asked it the same. It’s all in the recording. 34:16
6) To people saying âYou didnât address any of Witsits pointsâ: The issue here is that you’ve fallen for Austin Witsit’s deception. I’m not sure if he’s as delusional as he displays, are if heâs outright deceiving you all for whatever reason, but either way it’s clear that you all eat it right up. Witsit didn’t make any points. He just rehashed misrepresentations of famous scientists, and declared things to be the way he says they are, and latched onto whatever string he could possibly get away with grabbing onto to spin it like there is some issue with the science when one isnât there. I caught most but missed some. I recall him only once or twice asking an honest question but those must have been unintended on his part, as one time he interrupted me answering to lie and say he’ll ask the question again. But then he asked a different question apparently designed again to try to lead me into some manipulated quasi-idea of what we understand so he can trip me up on a strawman type deal and pretend he got me. I called that out directly, and I didnât go for it. Again and again, he tried erroneously telling me what my model is like, âthis is your paradigm, you believe this, now answer me thisâ. I didnât go for it. He couldnât get me with the fake questions; therefore, he deceived you all into believing I didnât answer his questions. So, it seems people like him have their deception over people like you so completely.
If they get us on a trick question, then itâs âAha Witsit won, and the Earth is flat or geocentricâ or whatever heâs feeding you all at the time. And if I donât fall for that con then itâs, âOh he didnât answer any questions!,â even though he didnât ask many honest questions. Itâs amazing. By the way, I did answer that original albeit apparently unintended honest question more than once in the debate, as it was the same question of evidencing a heliocentric solar system. I can recall another one can say honest question he asked â it seems to be asked more as a gotcha. He asked me to name one technology from the space field that we use in everyday life, as I said that we use technology developed in the space sciences. It seems he only asked as a gotcha, as he seemed salty that I could answer it. Perhaps there are other honest questions that I canât recall. But each honest question I caught I answered. And the dishonest ones I clearly pointed out that I am not going to believe what he tells me my model or position is. Perhaps if you step back and try LISTENING for yourself and THINKING for yourself rather than just believing and parroting what popular flat Earth people and other flat Earth people say and/or encourage you all to say and think. Itâs ironic that so many of the bad thinking habits you all accuse scientists of you all do in spades.
I presented several pieces of evidence and observations that anyone can verify for themselves. You can get pictures of the Sun. You can get spectra of the Sun. You can see that the Sun and therefore other stars are not just âlights in the skyâ or âelectromagnetic something behind a screenâ or whatever other nonsense these ignorant, deceptive, or delusion people have people such as yourself believe. You can honestly test, evaluate and confirm gravity and related equations. You can do some research (not just watching flat Earth videos and memes as Iâve found globe deniers mean you say âresearch,â but really learning valid information) about the history of our understanding of the solar system. Witsit is the one who avoided simple questions, like predicting a specific positioning of Mars. This is simple for people who really understand how the solar system works, evidenced by the fact that we have predictions for centuries. First, Witsit tried to derail me from the question, and then when that didnât work, he put up some out of left field link that he seemed to just google on the spot to pretend he knows what he’s talking about. You’ve been fooled.
7) “In this entire debate, can anyone find a single instance in which Witsit spoke, then Darryl spoke, and what Darryl said beared any logical resemblance to what Witsit just said or asked?”: The debate is right there. If someone can’t answer that for themsleves it seems the person is either a liar or an idiot. I guess I’m not compelled to find those timestamps in either case.
8) “You couldn’t give Witsit a specific reference of quotes he took out of context!!”: It’s very simple. One way of putting it is: Witsit said all my quotes of him, even quotes I GOT FROM A CONVERSATION I DIRECTLY HAD WITH HIM EARLIER THIS YEAR, he said they are all out of context. So therefore, quotes he takes of scientists, who he has never talked to or even seen since some have been dead for centuries, are clearly out of context, especially since the service he wants those words to do contradict the resulting physics and technologies and laws and cosmology we have today. Doubled by the fact that, as I showed more than once, he doesn’t understand the basic math necessary to even APPROACH these subjects properly. It’s amazing that you harp on this. It’s clear that flat Earth and all it’s subsets of globe denial deminish the ability of you all to think and reason – if you had that capacity to begin with.
P.S. This is typical of flat Earth, that you have one set of rules where you can just dismiss anything you don’t like or that shows you wrong, and no justification given is ever accepted anyway. But when it comes to something you like or thinks makes you right no such rules are needed and are ignored for what you want to believe.
9) ââYou leave out the m (mass) you prove my pointâ .⊠which is true.â:
Youâve been fooled. Witsit has fooled you, and whether itâs just his ignorance or delusion or heâs purposely stringing you all along for money or attention or whatever. Youâve been fooled. Iâll stream a video this week to detail on this (9/4).
