Oakley Gives Us a Model We CAN Test.


  • Khun Rich 2 months ago

    Angle of attack??? What does an aeronautic term have to do with a flat earth? Nathan can't even get his jargon right.

  • DownsideUp 2 months ago

    Oakleys angle didn't survive the attack.

  • KaiserSchnitzel 2 months ago

    lol Noakley the Clockwork Orange comes out of the closet with a hamfisted popsicle-stick turkey

  • Harry M 2 months ago

    As I knew it would, no's model failed. Miserably. 'Nuff said.

  • Geist View 2 months ago

    I see Spurs was looking for attention again like a lost dog. All he wanted to do was get in the hangout make it about him and deflect from his master.

    The clown is nothing but a fake posh, Racist, Homophobe, antisemite….. Hood Rat.

  • Lauren Tactikos 2 months ago

    So, can we just compile all their Special Pleading Ad Hoc excuses into one unifying assertion at this point:
    The angle of attack – Flat Earth assertion that attempts to explain why distant objects appear and disappear exactly as they would on the spherical Earth.
    2. Universal down force that makes all objects on Earth accelerate towards the Earth, just like gravity, but not gravity.
    3. The anti moon – an invisible, undetectable, undocumented object or phenomena that creates the same effect as the Earth’s shadow during an eclipse, but isn’t an eclipse because Muh Special Pleading
    4. Flerspective – an undefinable, non-mathematical concept that can be applied to any situation that challenges Flat Earth.
    5. Anti-NASAism – can be used in any discussion to switch the conversation from poor arguments and absent evidence.
    6. Mason-ology – see above. Just invoke free masons.
    7. Atmospheric lensing – reason that close, small Sun and Moon don’t change in angular size as they circle the Flat Earth.
    8. Personal Dome of observational hand waving – The concept that allows Flat Earthers to dismiss all observational evidence as invalid if it doesn’t validate Flat Earth.

    I’ll update as I remember more components of the Unifying Assertion of Flat Earth Special Pleading
    Edit for 7 and 8.

  • funtic toc 2 months ago

    I think I saw such oakley hall in 1 of my drug trips…in same colours as this vid

  • DVK 2 months ago

    I made the mistake of going to DITRHs latest video against Wolfie and reading the comment section. This FE cult is serious. Delusion has really got a hold of them. They are all mentally ill.

  • Andrew eby 2 months ago

    I love how you demonstrate what we see in REALITY with computer simulation. That's some real scientific stuff you got going on here. Just like how you guys have resorted to looking up in the sky to prove your globe instead of actually DEMONSTRATING how a BODY of water can stick to a sphere.

  • Alan Crabb 2 months ago

    There's a conversation going on with LBB but nothing in the chat replay. Is there an unseen/unheard channel?

  • Sly Sparkane 2 months ago

    interesting.. no posts yet from Oakley… roll up roll up…

  • Neil Fawcett 2 months ago

    Surely Nathan's angle of attack depends in which direction his kid is in?

  • DavidB5501 2 months ago

    I haven't watched Oakley's videos, and I don't intend to, but when I saw some second-hand accounts of his 'angle of attack' argument I did wonder if there might be a grain of truth in it. I concluded that any grain of truth was so small as to be insignificant. But for what it's worth:
    a. If an observer views a vertical object from a distance on a plane surface, and the object is divided into equal vertical units, the visual angle subtended by each unit at the viewpoint will not be equal. Units that are directly opposite the viewpoint will subtend the largest visual angle, while those that are viewed obliquely will subtend smaller angles the further away they are from the point directly opposite the viewpoint.
    b. If the viewpoint is above the plane surface, units on the object that are closer to the surface will subtend a smaller visual angle than those directly opposite the viewpoint. This means that units near the bottom of the object may fall below the limits of angular resolution (about 1 arc minute with the naked eye) when units higher up do not. (This is the 'grain of truth'.)
    c. But the same argument applies equally to units that are higher than the viewpoint. In the case of e.g. a distant ship, this means that if the viewpoint is level with the middle of the ship (in height) both the top and the bottom parts of the ship would be equally affected.
    d. Even when an item is below the limits of angular resolution, it does not literally vanish . When we view an area of grass from a distance, the individual blades of grass cannot be distinguished, but we can still see the area of grass as a whole. It does not magically shrink or disappear. So if the bottom of a boat, etc, becomes indistinct, it does not vanish . And even if it did, the boat would not appear to sink below the horizon – the upper part of the boat would presumably hover in mid-air!
    e. Unless the object is large in relation to the distance from the viewpoint, the difference in visual angles subtended by equal units is negligible anyway. Taking an object 20 meters high at a distance of 10 km as a typical example, viewed from opposite the midpoint, the visual angle in degrees of the top and bottom quarters would be the same as that of the middle quarters to an accuracy of 6 decimal places, or a millionth of a degree.

  • DuhIdiot 2 months ago

    We gotta nail down this spelling.


  • ZEBULON 181 2 months ago

    🎼🎶doode doode dooo🎵

  • nothing isnt As it seem 2 months ago

    So if I tell you mathematic is viable only on verified physically and on known thing? I just stated a model? ! One problem , laymen model are NEVER ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW , so you ll have to find another name, idea come to mind

  • John Sharpe 2 months ago

    We don't live of a Model sad little boy.. quick Nathan's Just stolen your ball, don't cry Shauwny

  • Walter Bislin 2 months ago

    Hi all. I just want you to give an interactive model of what Sly shows in the video. Please read below the following link.


    This is a model of the Causeway. On the left you see the prediction of the Flat Earth Model, on the right you see the prediction of the Globe Model.

    Zoom Slider If you zoom out, you see how both model look almost the same. This means you have to zoom in a lot at the horizon to see the curvature of the earth, because the earth is huge.

    Height Slider Zoom out and use the Height slider all the way up to space to see what the bridge looks like on a camera that has not the zoom capabilities of a P900/P1000.

    SideVar Slider on the Object1 Panel use this slider to move horizontally.

    And here is the comparison of the same model with what Soundly has observed:

  • Chris Kelling 2 months ago

    Still – "angle of atrack" is the angle of the wing of a airplane te o the air. Too much angle of attack, and you cannot get enough speed and stall out, and stop flying.

  • Motzer Alles Mist 2 months ago

    angle of attack is the angle of the wing of an aircraft in the air regarding to its flight direction.

  • IamUranus 2 months ago

    Iru landucci, the Argentinian charlatan, says dome is made of gas "in critical state". They make up new shite on the go, and at the same time, they use the samea thousand times debunked crap . It's amazing.

  • dart man 2 months ago

    If u understand this ….point is …with me …

  • dart man 2 months ago

    Lost boy's show

  • dart man 2 months ago

    Angle of attack. ..

  • TomD Pretty 2 months ago


  • My perception 2 months ago

    I just tried to observe the angle of attack https://youtu.be/u24_THyTK64

  • Boaty Mc Boatface 2 months ago

    Awesome Shawn! Of course you'll hear nothing but deflection and bendy water. Are you going to share hangout with Red from this afternoon?

  • dregihtnek 2 months ago

    Balls to the wall, Shawn. Balls to the wall.

  • WheresWa11y 2 months ago

    Shawn – I was inspired by you to try the "Huffording Filter" effect on the view out the window of Origin Blue at various heights up to 100km.

  • randomTINGS 2 months ago

    he has a few videos explaining the angle of attack….bluur

  • Paul Nolan 2 months ago

    Geometry sucks huh LMFAO MAN !!!!!

  • Paul Nolan 2 months ago

    thanks Shawn liked and subbed ^^ see ya around lol

  • john buono 2 months ago

    Talking bs as usual

  • equaltemp 2 months ago

    What Oakley and most other flat earthers don't seem to get is that even if perspective were a factor, it would in no way rule out curvature. It would only mimic it. It would only demonstrate that perspective COULD be mistaken for curvature. But It would do nothing to disprove it. They obviously have trouble differentiating the two.

  • ALLnamesTAKENffs 2 months ago

    Flat Earth 101… Never make a model.

  • Sean Cowles 2 months ago

    Really that guy Nathan is an idiot

  • EddieRay724 2 months ago

    FE is a cult. You can't change their minds. They have to do that themselves, an inevitable outcome however long it takes.

  • The Snark 2 months ago


  • Janne Laitinen 2 months ago

    Del and Gav tried to explain perspective yesterday and something about personal domes. Stream ended when they started to get angry and Del said he will disable comments from every video. Fun times.

  • Ash Scott 1 month ago

    Angle of attack is the difference between hitting your daughter, and falling flat on your face. You gotta put some weight behind it, but you gotta keep your balance too.

  • Alain Martel 1 month ago

    So, that so called «angle of attack» is a thing that depends on the distance between the observer and the closest flat surface ? Also, it makes things to be squished in proportion to the distance an object relative to that plane. So, as strange selective, directional, perspective that depend on the distance in a non-linear way.
    Really strange thing that I've never seen.


Add your comment

Your email address will not be published.