Hiring a Flat Earther? You won't believe what happened!

Hiring a Flat Earther? You won't believe what happened!

Table of Contents:

1. Introduction
2. The Controversy Surrounding Mitchell's Video
3. Possible Explanations for the Pendulum's Lack of Movement
4. Contacting Science Space for Confirmation
5. The Offer to Pay Mitchell to Film a Two-Hour Uncut Video
6. Mitchell's Response and Counter-Offer
7. Making the Payment and Setting the Terms
8. The Options and Consequences for Mitchell
9. Conclusion

The Controversy Surrounding Mitchell's Video

Mitchell, an Australian flat-earther, recently released a video claiming that a focal pendulum at Science Space in Sydney proves that the Earth is stationary. He argues that according to the globe model, the pendulum should have changed direction over time due to the Earth's rotation. However, Mitchell's video shows that the pendulum does not appear to move, leading to a debate about the reliability of his claims.

Possible Explanations for the Pendulum's Lack of Movement

Several theories have been proposed to explain why the focal pendulum in Mitchell's video did not exhibit the expected movement. One possibility is that the pendulum is only an exhibition model used to demonstrate how such pendulums work, rather than an actual working focal pendulum. Another explanation could be that there is a malfunction or issue with the pendulum's mounting or swinging mechanism. Mitchell's video also included cuts, leading some to question the authenticity and continuity of the footage.

Contacting Science Space for Confirmation

To clarify the nature of the focal pendulum at Science Space, an attempt was made to contact the attraction directly. However, no response has been received at the time of writing. This lack of confirmation adds to the uncertainty surrounding the pendulum and its functionality.

The Offer to Pay Mitchell to Film a Two-Hour Uncut Video

In an effort to address the skepticism surrounding Mitchell's video, a proposition was made to him. It was suggested that he film a continuous, unedited, two-hour video of the focal pendulum to provide further evidence and dispel any doubts. In return, the offer included a payment of $150 Australian dollars to cover the ticket, fuel expenses, and compensate for his time.

Mitchell's Response and Counter-Offer

Mitchell initially declined to watch the video response addressing his claims. However, he later contacted the proposer and countered the original offer. Mitchell requested $150 Australian dollars to cover the entrance fee, fuel expenses, and compensate for his time to film a four-hour uncut video of the pendulum. He set the condition that the funds must be provided upfront before he would proceed with the recording.

Making the Payment and Setting the Terms

After accepting Mitchell's counter-offer, a payment of $150 Australian dollars was made, effectively hiring him to film the requested video. A receipt was obtained as proof of the transaction. The terms included filming a four-hour uncut video, ensuring the length would not be disputed, and providing close-up shots of the pendulum and its mechanism for further analysis.

The Options and Consequences for Mitchell

Mitchell now faces three possible outcomes Based on his actions. If he refuses to film the video, it will be seen as evidence against his claims, and the payment will be expected to be promptly returned. If he films the pendulum and it does not exhibit the expected procession, he will need to upload the video to retain the payment. However, doubts may arise about the pendulum's functionality or the authenticity of the footage. If the pendulum does process as expected, Mitchell will keep the payment but will have only proven that one pendulum exhibited the predicted behavior.

Conclusion

The controversy surrounding Mitchell's video raises questions about the reliability of his claims. By offering to pay him to film a four-hour uncut video, a proposition was made to either provide evidence supporting Mitchell's argument or disprove it. The subsequent actions and decisions made by Mitchell will determine the outcome and shed light on the validity of his claims.

The Controversy Surrounding Mitchell's Video

In recent days, a video released by Mitchell, an Australian flat-earther, has sparked a heated debate. Mitchell claims that a focal pendulum at Science Space in Sydney provides evidence that the Earth is stationary. His argument Stems from the belief that the pendulum's movement should demonstrate the rotation of the Earth, as described in the globe model. However, viewers have noticed that the pendulum, as shown in Mitchell's video, appears to be motionless.

Possible Explanations for the Pendulum's Lack of Movement

Several theories have emerged to explain why the focal pendulum in Mitchell's video did not exhibit the expected movement. Some have proposed that the pendulum on display at Science Space may merely be an exhibition model, intended to provide a visual representation of how such pendulums work. Others speculate that there may be a malfunction with the pendulum's mounting or swinging mechanism, hindering its movement. Additionally, the fact that Mitchell's video includes cuts and edits has led to suspicions of manipulation or deception.

Contacting Science Space for Confirmation

To gain Clarity on the nature of the focal pendulum at Science Space, an attempt was made to contact the attraction directly. Unfortunately, no response has been received thus far. This failure to confirm the pendulum's authenticity only adds to the uncertainty surrounding Mitchell's claims and raises further questions about the accuracy of his video.

The Offer to Pay Mitchell to Film a Two-Hour Uncut Video

In an effort to address the skepticism surrounding Mitchell's video, an intriguing proposal was made. It was suggested that Mitchell film a two-hour unedited video of the focal pendulum, thereby capturing its movement continuously and dispelling any doubts. To incentivize his cooperation, a payment of $150 Australian dollars was offered to cover expenses such as the entrance fee, fuel costs, and compensate him for his time.

Mitchell's Response and Counter-Offer

Mitchell initially declined to watch the video response addressing his claims, but later reached out to the proposer with a counter-offer. He requested $150 Australian dollars upfront, covering the entrance fee, fuel expenses, and compensation for his time to film a four-hour uncut video of the pendulum. Mitchell emphasized that he would only proceed with the task once the funds were provided.

Making the Payment and Setting the Terms

The counter-offer proposed by Mitchell was accepted, and a payment of $150 Australian dollars was made. By doing so, Mitchell was effectively hired to film the requested video. A receipt was acquired as proof of the transaction. The terms of the agreement called for a four-hour uncut video, securing the footage's integrity and length, as well as close-up shots of the pendulum and its mechanism for detailed analysis.

The Options and Consequences for Mitchell

Mitchell now faces three potential outcomes, each with its own repercussions. If he refuses to fulfill the agreement by filming the video, it will serve as evidence against his claims, and he will be expected to promptly return the payment. However, if Mitchell follows through and records the pendulum for four hours without observing the predicted procession, he must upload the unedited video to receive the payment. Nevertheless, doubts may still linger regarding the pendulum's functionality or the authenticity of the footage. Conversely, if the pendulum does exhibit the expected movement, Mitchell will retain the payment but will have essentially only proven that one particular pendulum behaved as predicted.

Conclusion

The controversy surrounding Mitchell's video raises crucial questions regarding the reliability and validity of his claims. The proposition to pay him to film a four-hour uncut video was designed to either provide evidence supporting Mitchell's argument or debunk it entirely. The subsequent actions and choices made by Mitchell will ultimately determine the outcome and shed light on the veracity of his claims.