Debate | Heliocentrists vs JLB (2-Jul-2016)

On 2-Jul-2016, I was randomly invited to a live google hangout with an all-star cast of prominent pro-scientism YouTubers, including Shawn Hufford, Red’s Rhetoric, and Atheist Rex. What followed was a classic example of what happens when a group of scientism spruikers have their beliefs challenged by a genuine skeptic. This podcast features the relevant audio from that hangout as well as a brief review of the event, recorded 6-Oct-2016.


Shawn Hufford’s original hangout (2-Jul-2016) Link
Ball Earth Skeptic Roundtable #11 (19-Aug-2015) Link
JLB1546 | Risitas Leaves the Cult Behind (9-Sep-2015) Link
JLB1547 | Response to KHam + Cavendish Question (15-Sep-2015) Link
JLB1645 | The Cavendish Experiment: Scientism’s Achilles Heel (14-May-2016) Link
JLB1653 |Hypothetical Experiment (22-May-2016) Link

14 thoughts on “Debate | Heliocentrists vs JLB (2-Jul-2016)

  • 07-October-2016 at 2:55 pm

    Funny how these nerds always talk about institutions of science in ‘we’ terms.

    ‘we proved that 100s of years ago’ ‘we know how gravity works in the solar system’ ‘we have some really interesting theories about why gravity exists’.

    it’s like supporters of a sports team. Team science.

    • 10-October-2016 at 12:06 pm

      Yep, listening back to the show, that was something which still out to me as well. These people really take pride in regurgitating what they were told at school/uni, as though they achieved something themselves. Even if NASA really were going into ‘outer space’, it would still seem weird to me that these guys took any pride in it. The fact that the whole thing is one giant ruse just makes their pride even more absurd – not to mention equal parts comedic and tragic. What a mess.

  • 07-October-2016 at 11:28 pm

    I’d probably only agree with 50% of what you said here, but man what you did takes some balls.

    • 10-October-2016 at 12:03 pm

      Cheers, mate. I wonder which parts you disagree with? I would imagine that you have already seen through the ‘human evolution theory’ nonsense, so if you are still a firm believer in heliocentrism, that will come as a surprise to me. I would also imagine you were glad to hear that I’m planning to separate my scientism skepticism from my cultural marxism exposes. The latter is urgent and pressing, the former is more abstract and, if we are being honest, poison to some of the people who might be open to hearing fair critiques of what is being taught in school today about ‘gender’ (for instance). I am confident that my new strategy of separating content is the best way forward.

  • 08-October-2016 at 4:32 am

    These guys, especially Red, are such geeks I can almost imagine what they look like ūüôā
    I have listened to that debate with Red & Zetetism and it cracked me up everytime it was Red’s turn, he went: and counting 5,4,3,2,1 – the dude dreams of rockets and countdowns every chance he gets ūüėÄ
    However I think Red did a better job than Jeffrey Grupp on that debate.

    The podcast here was ridiculous and embarrassing for the scientism team. They went over 30 minutes about how Red didn’t get enough time to present his model a year ago, wtf ūüėÄ

    As far for the shape of the Earth, I think it’s flat, if it were a giant ball we would have real images and videos. I am well aware of the flaws the AE model has, I have watched your every single FE video, I salute you for pointing out the obvious errors in the FE model, I agree that most of the leading FE proponents are trying to make money or fame off this topic. I have mixed feelings about the Globebusters also..

    Lately I am playing with the possibility that all models exist at the same time – a simulation so to speak.

    Looking forward to speaking with you, cheers

    • 10-October-2016 at 11:59 am

      I think that several of their own panel members might have realised that it did not go so well for them. Take a look at that video on Shawn’s channel: last I checked, it was still on well under 1,000 views. They obviously have not gone out of their way to promote it to their fanbase of scientism believers. Can you blame them? They couldn’t even get their own story straight when it came to the Cavendish experiment. Do you need to know the earth’s mass to determine the moon’s? Listen back to around 55m -> 65m of the podcast. RR says yo can determine the mass of the moon without knowing earth’s mass, by instead using a formula which includes ‘G’. But how did they determine ‘G’? By using a formula which itself requires the mass of the earth. He made the same slip-up in BESR #11.

      Once you understand these formulae and how to use them, you can see how utterly deluded the scientism spruikers really are. I will eventually make a thorough video series explaining all of this so that even people who don’t like maths can understand it.

      • 10-October-2016 at 2:52 pm

        After this I downloaded the Cavendish paper, and a few others like an MIT paper. Complying some thoughts now on this… Some things that just stick out like a sore thumb to me.

  • 08-October-2016 at 9:29 am

    Totally embarrassing. What is wrong with these people? Let me make a simple analogy. Let’s say I’ve written a new paper on primes. I’ll present a claim, and logic reasoning to support that claim.

    I’ll then ask JLB not for his opinions on MY paper, but to peer review my reasoning. I don’t even care about his thoughts on primes, they’re for his paper, not mine.

    I’ll provide my methods of logic, such as if P = Q then !Q = !P.

    I’ll be looking for the skeptic to find holes in my logic, and if found look to correct or change my approach.

    How can these people just not get that? Why do they always ask the skeptic “well if not, then what”?

    JLB isn’t the gravity expert, nor ever made that claim. He might not be the prime number expert either, but if I predicate my claim on shonky science, it’s his role to challenge.

    The true scholar welcomes the peer review because it strengthens the authors paper, just like an immune system. The skeptic is the unsung hero.

    • 10-October-2016 at 11:24 am

      Your last sentence says it all: the person genuinely interested in improving themselves will welcome scrutiny of their work. I for one would appreciate it if some of my critics would take the time to point out logical flaws or factual errors in my reasoning. If they could so, it would be of tremendous benefit to me. Instead, the critics tend to respond to my work with emotional outbursts, because I don’t make them feel good. We truly are dealing with damaged people, mature in their physiology but juvenile in their intellectual and emotional capacities. Real thinkers, they are not.

      • 10-October-2016 at 2:59 pm

        Im compiling a list of my findings on the Cavendish experiments now after reading the original paper. Somethings you say I don’t complete agree with, this might be my miss interpretation of the paper. Some videos on YouTube seem to confirm “attraction of mass”, which is fine. What I’m trying to peer review, are the functions in the paper. The paper makes statements like “about nine inches”, but them claims extreme precision in the torque.

        The paper mentions an ODE too, which I admit I found impressive. However, shouldn’t it be a partial derivative, as there would also be a vector towards the centre of Earth too, and not just pi/4?

        My theory is small error margins will cause catastrophic errors in the functions. Just need some more spare time to collate the piece…

  • 13-October-2016 at 10:14 am

    That was very good, well worth listening to. Your position throughout seemed very clear, honest and logical. My instinct tells me you’re one of the good guys out here, and that you’re here for the right reasons. Personally I remain completely open minded regarding the shape of the Earth/nature of reality at the moment. I like the “flat earth scene” though as it at least gets individuals to start asking questions. It’ll be interesting to see where it all goes from here and where we’ll all be in another 12 months time.

    • 04-November-2016 at 7:23 pm

      Thanks for the kind words, Neil. Your instinct is on the money but, then again, I would say that, wouldn’t I? There are so many damned fools who have been attracted to this scene that it is difficult, even for those of us who pay close attention, to sort the deceived from the deceivers. Not that it isn’t worth trying all the same. As for the benefits of asking questions, you may like the input of ‘Cathexis’, who featured on my latest Impromptu Chat (#9 – ‘Lessons Learned). Those of us who not only ask the questions but seek the answers? Yes, we are generally better off for it. Those who simply like ‘asking questions’? Well, they never had much chance to begin with, did they? Sadly they outnumber us seemingly 100:1…

  • 28-June-2017 at 5:58 pm

    A bit late to the party in listening to this discussion, but the relevance here is timeless. The theme is simple, yet profound: dogmatists despise skepticism. Once questioned, the dogmatist responds with a feigned arrogance, typically predicated upon strength by numbers, and the rampant use of ad hominem attacks. If a skeptic continues his line of questioning, no matter how cordial and professional the skeptic may be, the arrogance of the dogmatist gives way to frustration, which in turn becomes anger.

    Heliocentrist, flat earther… in this sense, there’s truly no difference between the two.

    • 29-June-2017 at 7:18 pm

      Thanks for comment; I could not have said it better myself: dogmatists despise skepticism. It is not merely that they dislike it (or refuse to employ it), these people actually despise even being around genuine skepticism. Like cats and bathtubs.

      I have been saying for some time now that conspiratards and normies are two sides of the same coin. The ‘Flat Earth’ ‘debate’ helped me realise this more than any other topic I can think of. if we can strip away our own preconceived notions about the ‘merits’ (or otherwise) of the combatants, we can see very quickly that they mirror one another in the worst ways. Dogmatism.

Leave a Reply