Flat Earther Who Thinks He Can Read, Cannot Read

Enjoy.

Thanks for watching.

Also, if you want access to behind the scenes photos and videos, chat groups and more then check out my recently revamped Patreon page. Take a look and join a new tier if you want some extra perks:

Dan's opinions shared in this video are supported by verified facts (whether scientific or general) and they should be treated as just that: opinions. All critique and humour are addressed to the words and actions of individuals and not to the individuals themselves, under the Act of Free Speech.

#research #fail #flatearth

[TheMkoose]

I'll never understand why flat earthers think gravity is fake but the second law of thermodynamics is real.

[James-Lee-Smith]

I'm not a violent man but the term "punchable face" pops into my mind every time I see that guy.

[Jan_Koopman]

"They are hiding the truth from you! But don't worry: I found the truth publically accessible on their website!"
Makes perfect sense

[robertcartier]

That moment you realize that he's not _speaking_ like a child, he's _THINKING_ like a child!

[Szadek]

I do find it hilarious that there's apparently this global, flawless cover up, yet they admit "the truth" in publicly avaliable documents.

[daleleblanc]

imagine how much this guy could accomplish if he were to put this much effort into reality

[Planarwalk]

Thank you very much for having me on Dan :)

[steve]

KDC looks and sounds insane. My conclusion is that he is insane.

Searching for single words in patents - 25, 593 patents have monster in them so monsters are real.

Good job Planarwalk.

[agent]

He must have thought that because his physics exam in college said "ignore air resistance" that concludes that there is no air in real life.

[Wintermute]

Science text: "if we treat this penguin as a symmetrical point particle"
Flerf: "penguins aren't birds, they're tiny particles"

[Mr_OoOsH]

The look on this guys face generally, it tells us all we need to know.

“NASA LIES” also “NASA SAYS ITS FLAT”

🤔 I have never understood how they don’t see what they’re saying with this.

[fatdollar]

Firmament never referred to a dome until the Flat Earthers decided it did.

[mjelves]

You can see in this guy's eyes that his sanity has taken a permanent sabbatical.

[benb]

This thing about "NASA referring to a flat Earth in their documents" that I have now seen in several of these flat Earth videos: I'm an aeronautical engineer, and it is a simplification that is often used when certain things are modeled, but it is purely used to simplify the math in special cases where the effects of either the shape or the rotation of the Earth are negligible compared to other more dominant factors. It doesn't even vaguely suggest that Engineers think the Earth is flat. In fact, in order to know when it is appropriate to use this simplification, you need to have a very good understanding of both the shape and the motion of the Earth and how it affects whatever it is you are trying to model.

For example, if I needed to model the pitch response of a subsonic aircraft to a longitudinal stick input, the part of the motion that I'm interested in is going to be over in seconds. The aircraft is only going to cover a tiny fraction of the distance around the Earth during that time. Because both the time (compared to the time taken for the Earth to rotate once about its axis) and the distance covered relative to the surface of the Earth (compared to the circumference of the Earth) are short, we find that we get almost identical answers if we (a) model the Earth as a flat, stationary surface and (b) if we modeled it properly using a more sophisticated rotating ellipsoid of revolution. So, we may as well benefit from the simplification in this particular example by using the simpler model. Needless to say, you must be very sure that the differences are indeed negligible, and engineers therefore also make a point of stating that they made this simplification when they write a report or academic paper.

On the other hand, if you are developing an inertial navigation system that is intended to be used to navigate an aircraft over a distance of a few thousand kilometers and/or where the aircraft is going to be airborne for a few hours, you definitely cannot ignore the shape and rotation of the Earth anymore, so you cannot make the flat earth simplification. It is therefore very unlikely that you will see a reference to a "flat Earth" in a journal paper about inertial navigation, but you may see it in a paper about aircraft flying or handling qualities.

[TimelyAbyss]

Patent examiner here : just because someone managed to get a patent doesn’t mean their invention actually works!

[maxmac]

Bob's quote should include his following words after he says "We found that we were picking up a fifteen degree per hour drift", he then states, "We obviously were not willing to accept that".
Flat earthers logic right there.
Laughing boy demonstrates this perfectly.

[coyoteboy]

I started a Non-turbulent Society last summer, but had to put it down when my house was destroyed by a tornado and I lost all my evidence.

[Philter-Coffee]

I like his plane argument, it makes me laugh at how it would look if it were the case. The thought of a kid rolling a ball forward on a moving plane and his friend stops it, but when his friend rolls it back, it's going faster than a major league baseball pitch.

[JasonVorce]

That dude FOR SURE has human body parts in his freezer.

[MightyMattTM]

I love when a flerf says “here look at this citation!” And then the citation completely disagrees with them.