I took the time to listen to your interview Michael, but I'm sorry to say that I didn't find your opinions any more clarifying than those already posted here on the Flat Earth Wiki or the forum.
I was hoping for a more in-depth
personal point of view on a couple of the more contentious issues. You claimed that the flat earth was both a
finite disc which you could fall off, as well as an
infinite plane, but were only guessing as to what covered that infinite plane. You also said that a person couldn't travel accurately due east or west without an as-yet undiscovered navigational device, but laid that problem on conventional
round earth navigation deficiencies.
You were also unsure as to the sizes of the planets and the sun, other than to say that you didn't accept the usual flat earthers claim of 3,000km (not
miles?) diameter. A couple of times you relied on the notion of extremely excessive refraction (or "bendy" light) to explain the apparent orbits of the planetary system, sunrises/sunsets, and curved horizons, but you voiced no opinion as to the actual mechanics of this refraction.
You opined that scientists were simply "wrong" in viewing the earth from space as a sphere, or that the rounded appearance of the earth and planets was caused, again, by the "aether", whose composition and optical effects you didn't explain. You also didn't explain the connection between the aether and refraction either—as far as any presumed optical interface was involved. This undefined aether was simply just there, and massive refraction simply just occurred.
Your claim that aircraft pilots "didn't understand" their navigation systems is demonstrably wrong; it's one of the basics of their training due to its critical nature. Presumably this opinion is based on nothing more than a guess intended to support your case?
And all too often, you resorted to so-called
weasel words such as possibly, theoretically, unknown, potentially, might be, could be etc. Each of your "facts" about a flat earth/universe seemed to be preceded by some sort of qualifier.
I also have to say that Seán Moncrieff is a very poor radio interviewer, with his repeated false starts and stuttering. He'd obviously not done any of his own flat earth research before interviewing you—as any top interviewer should do. He let you off far more lightly than I would've Michael, and let you get away with answering too many questions far too vaguely.
Unfortunately, and although you came across as very rational and articulate, I don't think this particular interview would've resulted in any more proponents of a flat earth—but which was Moncrieff's fault rather than yours.
I thank you for the link.
