This reply got longer than I thought it would. I guess you have a good point, I should have stated something concrete to argue with. I didn't offer much substance other than 'hey guys watch this vine lol so funny cat videos xDDD'. So, thanks.
The guy in the video makes a crazy statement about forests, insists that he has a good point
You don't have to watch it if you don't want to. I thought it was a trash video myself, just more crappy clickbait but I gave it 5 minutes and his tone amused me. That's why I called spoilers; his 'crazy statements' and insisting is part of the joke. Granted, his presentation method appeals only to a certain-humored crowd.
but then starts rambling about random optical illusions.
I watched the video 3 times now, but don't remember anything about optical illusions? The 15 minute (or so) intro is a little laden with facts I admit I haven't verified (
such as ocean/ice carbon levels, and how that indicates global fires of the past; 99 atmospheres of pressure lost at some point in antiquity), and by all means I wouldn't mind debating. For early opinions of the video I was expecting an argument about those points, to be honest, since the whole theory he is proposing is based entirely on this. The point about boobies vs dolphins was just how he chose to illustrate that we don't see the world as a quarry waste zone - we are distracted by 'boobies'. That's less than 2 minutes on optical illusions in a 2 hour video.
He presents the theory about 'tall trees' almost exclusively on the fact that the amount of fires indicated by the carbon dioxide levels in the ocean (and ice) could not be accounted for by the land mass we have; unless there were much larger trees ('vertical land mass'; here is a great place to stop and discredit his theory, where I expected most debate to begin... not on optical illusions haha but that's fine, hard to argue about a video you didn't watch). Of course, that part is hard to understand in the video, but many other youtubers have made attempts to 'translate' that theory. He doesn't represent the data well, though that is more due to language barrier from what I can tell.
I doubt many people will sit through an hour of his mindless rambling just because he promises he has a good point at the end. Nobody is worried about spoilers. If you want to make a point, just say it.
It's kind of a viral video RN. Rare that a viral video exceeds an hour, granted (it's a 2 hour vid). At worst (or best) it will be annoying and get facts wrong and make horrible conclusions from distorted figures. At best (or worst), it could potentially change the way you look at the world. I'm feeling a bit of both from it. Aristotle quote:
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."That said I don't have much to say about it really tbh, unless someone has already seen the whole thing. Impossible to argue on equal footing with someone lacking basic understanding of a theory. I think Flat Earth pages get enough of that as it is LOL. This isn't exactly a 'new' theory, I've heard it off and on in my life, but never this suciently and compacted.
Now... I suppose I could at least provide some source pictures to demonstrate [a part of] the argument he has put forth, at very least; however, I'm just some random person who watched this video; I have no background in any of the related fields, other than the fact that I spent some time working in a quarry several years back, and was trained under MSHA. Basically [part of what] he is saying [is that] the world is an ancient quarry zone... that got flooded somehow (deluge/flood). It also posits that, since stone and precious metals are remnants of trees, these 'quarries' are merely the signs of our 'termite' nature on 'tree Earth' (taking my above extrapolation into consideration about tectonic plates).
These are just 2 examples I've found in a few minutes 'digging around', but I'm sure there are more. He lists several examples near the end of the video, if you want to find more. I will certainly be looking; for me, once I saw 'quarries' instead of 'natural monuments', there was no going back. That is all he means about his 'optical illusions' or the 'Matrix' analogy; I don't watch many movies so I don't know anything about the latter. Anyway:
A known quarry, flooded (near or at Kelly Islands, Ohio, couldn't confirm):
Isle of Wight - underwater 'basin' look
They look very similar. Isle of Wight is the best example I can think of, but I'm sure there are more ocean-based examples; what we call 'basins' may have actually been nothing more than ancient quarries from when sea levels were lower. He also mentions
The Sea of Asov as displaying obvious signs of having been a quarry before the ocean took it. His point about the 'conical mountains' also really struck me in the heart.
As for what I said about tectonic plates... I merely took his theory and amplified it to 'global' scale... was Earth itself a tree at some point? The quote from Isaiah 14:8 about fir and cedar trees; I recall Gilgamesh cutting down
cedar trees. Also, the bible says 'nothing new under the sun', so maybe we
really have been quarrying for millennia.
Anyway it is 'highly fantastical', but it's definitely something to think about. As far as the fantastical goes, I admit I used to look at the world as 'how could I implement what I'm seeing in minecraft' for a time, but this video [revived the impulse and] changed that to 'what am I
really looking at, and what is it
really the remnants of'. I think anyone with any type of interest in the Flat Earth or the somewhat-prevailing debate about it, should check it out; if they think they can handle 2 hours of rambling, that is.