Flat Earthers confused by a table?

[@DaveMcKeegan]

To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DaveMcKeegan . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.

[@lawrenceallen8096]

"Flat earthers." Ever notice how all the comments about so-called flat earthers are other people talking about them, not the supposed flat earthers themselves? Look, anyone living in the modern world understands the solar system and our universe. The "Flat Earth" society and their Las Vegas conventions are the same thing as "Trekie Conventions." It's entertainment. No one at a Trekie convention believes they're walking around with Klingons and Romulins. Its entertainment. However, there are people who believe the earth is flat: indigenous isolated tribes, like in South America. And the North Sentinalese, and the like. And I'm getting tired of hearting people like you mocking these tribals. In fact, I think we need to jealously guard that diversity of human societies, not mock them, not browbeat the tradition out of them! That is incredibly intolerant! Stop making the last remaining tribal societies among us! Celebrate the diversity they bring to a boorish, styrofoam modern world we live in!

[@lawrenceallen8096]

"Flat earthers." Ever notice how all the comments about so-called flat earthers are other people talking about them, not the supposed flat earthers themselves? Look, anyone living in the modern world understands the solar system and our universe. The "Flat Earth" society and their Las Vegas conventions are the same thing as "Trekie Conventions." It's entertainment. No one at a Trekie convention believes they're walking around with Klingons and Romulins. Its entertainment. However, there are people who believe the earth is flat: indigenous isolated tribes, like in South America. And the North Sentinalese, and the like. And I'm getting tired of hearting people like you mocking these tribals. In fact, I think we need to jealously guard that diversity of human societies, not mock them, not browbeat the tradition out of them! That is incredibly intolerant! Stop making the last remaining tribal societies among us! Celebrate the diversity they bring to a boorish, styrofoam modern world we live in!

[@Earthislife1031]

I made a similar video about this. 2D surfaces do not obstruct 3D objects. Not sure why they all get misled by this nonsense.

[@OofHearted]

I sometimes wonder about camouflage patterns and their purpose when it isn't quite obvious, like on striped animals such as here with your tiger. Not all animals will have similar eyes to ourselves so I squint to see if it makes them seem like a larger animal than they are, looking for telltale signs like the ears coloured to look like eyes for example. With this tiger, I see the ears looking like the eyes of an open-mouthed animal with the black and white stripes across the eyes, around the cheeks, round the mouth and nose look like jaws open threateningly and the tiger's long plain snout looks like the tongue or inside of the open-mouthed fake beasty. I've seen similar such camo with domestic cats, the kind that all have very similar facial stripes as one another and is a very common pattern on cats that share that colour type. I don't know if I'm in the ball park of being correct, it's just an idea that seems to fit what I see through squinty eyes. Squinty-eye research, waddaya think? 🤔

[@RB-sz9gv]

Still waiting for a debate about Foucault’s pendulum 🤔

[@Katy_Jones]

The table trick is only useful for one thing. It demonstrates whoever does it KNOWS they are lying.

[@Sylfa]

I mean, every cult has its leaders. I'd assume the people making videos are cashing in on the beliefs of the cult, selling merch and getting donations. But it's not *impossible* that some of them actually believe their arguments. If they really, truly, believe that this is how it works then they'd assume the only reason they don't see the effect is because they clearly haven't lowered the camera enough. I mean, it's "true" so obviously if the proof is disproving it, then there is a flaw in the proof, right? Sure, it *looks* like the camera is a bit too low, but that's just because the sensor is offset, right? It's why the scientific principle is to try to disprove your theory, not prove it. It's too easy to gloss over inconsistencies when you're certain you're correct. Focusing on trying to disprove yourself shifts the goal so that you're *more* likely to discover a flaw in your own beliefs.

[@dogwalker666]

Yes indeed.

[@murph8411]

They always have the camera partially blocked by the table to start with and don’t consider how the lens configuration changes as they zoom in.

[@tzvikrasner6073]

This. Cult leaders pull all kinds of slight of hand and tricks to convince the faithful, and always know the faithful won't look beyond the surface.

[@TemperedMedia]

When your entire concept of reality is based on something, you can look at deception and call it fact. In this sense, you can speak a thousand lies and think only you have the truth. This is why Dave's appeal at the start of the video is so vital. The harder you attack their character, the more they will dig in their heels; your assault is a false positive for their belief system.

[@blankityblankblank2321]

TIL: never argue with a photographer about camera-based optical phenomena

[@leadboots72]

What about arguing with the guy that warns me not to argue with a photographer about camera-based optical phenomena? Is that off limits too?

[@kevinscovers7171]

@@leadboots72no, but fistfighting and throwing hands is off limits. Might scratch the lens.

[@horsemanshipper]

Agree and disagree. It used to be that way. But nowadays there are many 'professional' photographers doing important events like a wedding that don't even know the basics of exposure. I'm an amateur photographer myself. But sadly I often have to correct others for spreading misinformation. It runs rampant now. So many people nowadays buy a camera and start charging, thinking that they suddenly become the end all be all of photographers. Luckily there are still many experts. You just have to dig a bit deeper to find them. I had the luck to find a few. And I regularly ask them for advice and they always give it in a nice way and provide good links of good pieces of information for me to learn more. I'm now at intermediate level where I have a good understanding of the basics and some understanding of the advanced knowledge. My next one to tackle is artificial lighting which is far from an easy topic. But with the help of actual experts I will get there. I just wish more people nowadays would take the time to actually learn more than the basics, or at least the basics, before calling themselves a photographer. Because it ruins the name

[@steveb6386]

​@@horsemanshipper In a previous life I did freelance, both press and studio stuff. There is far too much invested in the idea that the newest, most feature packed, expensive camera is the 'best'. That is seldom the case. The best pictures are taken by the brain connected to the finger pressing the shutter release. Zillions of mega pixels doesn't do it, good glass can and does. Buy the best you can afford. Artificial lighting is a learning curve, just remember the inverse square law. Double the distance from light to subject, four times the exposure or light power. So double it, and it's 4 X 4...double it 4 X 4 X 4...and so on..And I did it with film. FP4, Fuji 160, Ektachrome, Velvia (beautiful stuff 50 ASA) etc. I wish you well. 🙂

[@horsemanshipper]

@@steveb6386 Oh, I absolutely agree. I shoot with the canon 6D mark i and my favourite lens thus far (I mostly do wildlife) is the 100-400L mark i. Both pretty old. But the glass is high quality and makes all the difference. I'm used to bounce flash and fill flash, but that's it. Actually shaping light will need some time to learn

[@ViperChief117]

Flat Earthers don’t understand a lot of things. So a table stumping them? Doesn’t shock me. lol

[@timolynch149]

Just wait until they find out that some tables are round. Their heads will explode and the table will be declared propaganda.

[@lusoverse8710]

The fact that they fix the camera just below the table surface shows that they know very well that they're intentionally faking it. They're just fraudsters doing a flat-earth act for clicks and attention.

[@ShizukuSeiji]

Flat earthers confused by a flat surface. Hm.

[@lawrenceallen8096]

"Flat earthers." Ever notice how all the comments about so-called flat earthers are other people talking about them, not the supposed flat earthers themselves? Look, anyone living in the modern world understands the solar system and our universe. The "Flat Earth" society and their Las Vegas conventions are the same thing as "Trekie Conventions." It's entertainment. No one at a Trekie convention believes they're walking around with Klingons and Romulins. Its entertainment. However, there are people who believe the earth is flat: indigenous isolated tribes, like in South America. And the North Sentinalese, and the like. And I'm getting tired of hearting people like you mocking these tribals. In fact, I think we need to jealously guard that diversity of human societies, not mock them, not browbeat the tradition out of them! That is incredibly intolerant! Stop making the last remaining tribal societies among us! Celebrate the diversity they bring to a boorish, styrofoam modern world we live in!

[@dogwalker666]

Imagine that LEO Adam the fake crane driver doesn't know how cameras work,

[@samael4550]

The massive issue here is that they don’t understand how cameras work. They think cameras are just little eyeballs in a metal case that magically record everything in view.

[@arctrix765]

if they had enough understanding for this, they'd understand a lot of other things too

[@timlong4791]

That's not even far off either, our eyeballs would have the same effect as our pupils contract or dilate. The problem is instead of exploring misunderstood concepts in logical ways, they passionately seek out conspiracies to form explanations so they can feel like they know something most people don't understand.

[@daemn42]

Can reproduce all the same effects with your eyeballs. Close one eye, hold your finger up horizontally a only a few inches in front of your eye, while focusing on something further away, like your computer screen. You'll be able to read the text through the blurred edge of your finger, and that blurry edge will be thicker or thinner, in inverse proportion to the brightness of the scene (as your pupils dilate or contract).

[@chronophagocytosis]

@@arctrix765 It's just just that. Conspiratorial thinking in general can be seen as a symptom of various mental illnesses such as paranoia and psychosis. You don't fix a root cause like that with facts. These people need therapy.

[@realdragon]

I don't know how cameras work either, but this guy gave who knows more about cameras gave me a perfectly logical explanation what's wrong with fleffer logic. You don't need to be specialist but consider and think through what person who knows stuff said to you

[@ReValveiT_01]

Flat planes cannot hide objects. Imagine getting to adulthood and still thinking that nothing can hide something. This is basic physics that we understand by the age of 3.

[@andreaspitsch9004]

They are probably still wondering where mommy is while peek-a-boo.

[@pedromega4]

That's a full two years beyond the grasp of a flerf.

[@ShizukuSeiji]

I have this theory that some of them are not actually this stupid. They KNOW their ideas are irrevocably broken and wrong, but must cling to them because of a religious book. The alternative is facing the truth that the Bible may not be entirely reliable... and at that point the rabbit hole opens and their entire life choices are screwed.

[@ryandombroski3406]

​@ShizukuSeiji My interpretations here but I don't believe the Bible states the Earth is flat. The four corners could be the North and South pole and then 2 places on the Equator. I'm a Christian, firmly believe in the Bible, but my 3 years on a periscope of a submarine watching ships disappear hull first and reappear mast first leaves no doubt in my mind the Earth is round lol. I would even zoom in on cruise ships as they disappeared watching them party and wish I was with them😂

[@EmrysMaier]

​@@ShizukuSeijiI haven't seen a Flat Earther claim religion as a reason for their belief that the Earth is flat. Usually they list a strong distrust of government among their main reasons, followed by a variety of 'evidence' that has been very poorly analyzed. I do agree, though, that many of them probably know they are wrong.

[@JoshuaOdionson]

I know a flat earther who, on one occasion, called me a liar when I said that when flying over the ocean or just a flat area that you can see the gentle curve of the earth. When I asked him where he's flown before he said "Oh, I haven't flown anywhere. I've never been on a plane". The cognitive dissonance.

[@peterdarr383]

Actually you can't discern the "gentle curve of the Earth" at 30,000 feet. Fly with a straight-edge next time.

[@Des_from_the_Wes]

Also, what the hell would you gain from lying about that?😂 Guess you could say the same thing about flat eathers who actually graduated high school, but still? Earth round = profit for random pilot????

[@Crazyclay78YT]

lmao i went up to about 40k ft on our flight, actually i think it was actually 38 or 39 (but close enough) now that im thinking about it, but you for sure could hold your phone up to the window and line up the "edges" of the earth and your phone and the middle of it goes up behind your phone. its pretty cool. and also when im playing flight simulator you can totally just grab the Darkstar and afterburner up to like 250k ft and you can really see it. also the orbital mechanics of Kerbal Space Program arent completely 100% accurate, but they are definitely accurate enough that you can plan interplanetary burns for like 100 years in the future and have it work out perfectly fine, so like who would go through all of the effort to create these complex mathematical equations to "try to pull the wool over our eyes" if the earth was indeed flat? like any person could calculate where a planet would be in the sky at a specific time if they wanted to, but they just have apps that do that for us now. and LaGrange points, oh my god are they so fucking sick. i would love to see a flat earther try to explain lagrange points, but they dont even believe that gravity or stars and the night sky are real, let alone these "imaginary" forces keeping the craft in the same relative position to the earth. god lagrange points are so fucking cool dude

[@jackoh991]

@@peterdarr383irs funny because it looks like you can see the curve even though you can't. I don't know why it seems like this

[@samkadel8185]

​@@jackoh991that's because you *can* see the curvature of the earth from a plane. The minimum height to see it from the naked eye is roughly 35,000 feet above the horizon and with a 60 degree field of view. It's not uncommon for commercial airlines to reach that height, and you can pretty easily get that field of view just by putting your face to the window. Plus, you can see the ways that the stuff on the ground warps around the planet, which can make the effect look much greater than the horizon line on its own.

[@AndrewWilsonStooshie]

They have actually gone to a lot of work to pretend the camera is level with the table. That suggests they know that what they are doing really is a con.

[@khandimahn9687]

It's always hard to tell if they are intentionally lying, or if they're so delusional they actually believe what they're saying.

[@Fred2-123]

No, it is easy to fool yourself. And as soon as they get the result they want, they stop looking.

[@Appletank8]

It also assumes each time we look at the horizon, our eyeball is half buried in the dirt.

[@peronkop]

They were looking for a result. Once things started disappearing they assumed they got the right height.

[@sheltongolden4394]

@@Appletank8 Good point

[@SteveBakerIsHere]

Hi! I'm a CGI expert - I've been working in that field for almost 50 years now. In the ISS footage - the FlatEarther's "evidence" actually proves completely the OPPOSITE of what he claims. Being able to see through a blurry foreground object is actually VERY hard to achieve with CGI. There are two methods commonly used for figuring out what obscures what - one is called "Z-buffering" and the other "Ray Tracing" - and in both cases - objects that are geometrically behind other objects are PERFECTLY obscured. To produce the effect of one object being seen through a blurry version of the other is actually quite hard to achieve and requires that you go to a lot of trouble to simulate camera optics in your graphics software...which is almost never done. So if you see one blurry object through another then that's VERY strong evidence that it's almost certainly *NOT* CGI. So our FlatEarther just un-proved what he was trying to prove.

[@Nerazmus]

How fast would a CGI expert get fired if they left in all there "errors" in the footage?

[@Konseeve]

Thank you for the explanation!

[@5peciesunkn0wn]

Never thought about how hard it would be to make that effect occur without like, textures slapped over the camera's viewpoint to mimic it.

[@SteveBakerIsHere]

@@5peciesunkn0wn Actually, even that wouldn't work because lunar dust has a weird retro-reflective effect that you can't mimic with just a texture on a surface...particularly when that has to interact with shadows cast by astronauts and equipment. Added to which - if they hadn't gone to the moon - how would the even know that this property of moon dust existed?

[@5peciesunkn0wn]

@@SteveBakerIsHere well, I meant like in video games to represent masks and stuff held close to the face lol. They use semi-transparent textures on the HUD sometimes. So holding a finger up to the face could *maybe* use a recording that's been 'greenscreened' to the hud region. But making it in full 3d does sound near impossible.

[@Vykk_Draygo]

Basically, these fools have never stuck their hand between their eyes and noticed that they can "see through" it on either side.

[@tristanridley1601]

That might be a different effect caused by binocular vision. This effect is why you can look through your eye lashes and things just get dimmer rather than having each hair obscure some things.

[@Kagdar]

@@tristanridley1601 it's still kinda similar. like in the window frame clip, the right side of the lens picks up the frame but the left side of the lens picks up the satellite dish. but the focus is on the satellite dish so it clips through the window frame.

[@Vykk_Draygo]

@@tristanridley1601 It's physically different, yes, but the effect is the same, and still caused by how we focus on objects. As you say, you can do the same thing with one eye, which would be the same as using a lens. It's just difficult to control exact focal length and height with our bodies. 😂 Either way, my point was to illustrate a phenomenon that most people find and play with as children. It isn't difficult to understand, even if the actual physical properties are complex. It's intuitive, because our bodies operate in similar ways.

[@T0MT0Mmmmy]

​@@tristanridley1601Close one eye and put one finger near to the open eye. You can see through the edges of your finger.

[@Vykk_Draygo]

@@T0MT0Mmmmy Exactly.

[@etdizzle10]

Being wrong is not only human, it's how we learn. But a flat earther is so wrong, they are wrongerer.

[@LaikaLGagarin1957]

not only wrong, but just flat out dishonest, to everyone around them and even themselves.

[@Panzer_Runner]

The wrongest

[@freddan6fly]

And they never learn.

[@sputukgmail]

@@LaikaLGagarin1957”flat out dishonest” 😂 I see what you did there. Very good.

[@sputukgmail]

Sometimes it is our role in life to act as a lesson for others to learn from our mistakes…even if we fail to learn from them ourselves. I just hope when that happens to me, I’m still around to know about it.

[@antigarathorn]

FLERFS: We can disproove globe by using optics! Optics: Exist FLERFS: That's CGI!!!

[@Diablo_Himself]

The flat Earth society says it is glad to have members "Around the globe"

[@dotcircles9926]

What’s even funnier is that accurate optics are pretty difficult to achieve in 3D rendering. Using it as “proof” that it’s a CG shot is like saying you suspect someone is underaged because their ID says they were born 21 years ago

[@MH9o4-k4b]

xD it's always cgi with those fools

[@BarioIDL]

@@MH9o4-k4b don't forget fisheye lenses

[@sanidhyamodi6704]

I still don't understand how flat earthers believe that NASA spends billions to "hide the truth" but won't spend like 30million to assinate every flat earther

[@redpilledman00000]

haha I never thought of it that way.

[@mr.harrow3405]

For the same reason they don't spend a dollar to explain them why they're wrong. because they'd all die of natural causes first. well i guess only if they do believe science about evolution

[@-SaKage]

I still don't understand what anyone would gain from lying about the shape of the earth

[@williamwygant8016]

sheeeet i'll do for 3mil

[@nordicFries]

I never understood how they think NASA founded in 1958 could hide all this from the rest of the world, who had been discovering and modeling the world for centuries, and how they would convince the enemies of USA, who have no incentive to stay quiet about this, to hidew their lies.

[@Rabbitzan]

I don't think flat earthers will ever come round.

[@barneypaws4883]

they give it to you straight

[@TheKuptis]

They live on the tangent.

[@mystwolfe7791]

I see what ya did there. 1,000 cool points (cool points are a subsiderary of the Awesome corperation. cool points have no redeemable monitary value and have been known to cause cancer in small laberatory animals) please use Cool Points responsibly.

[@mkaleborn]

I like your angle.

[@Hawk7886]

They really bend the truth

[@Karras353]

Kind of insane how they do not appreciate that it is problematic if you cannot also recreate this behaviour from a higher vantage point. We don't need to get down so low that water is entering our noses, in order to see a ship disappear bottom first.

[@oldtvnut]

Yes, every one of these is a strawman of the real situation.

[@helmuttrzoska4572]

You can climb a hill to see the ship again. But after a while it is gone again. Same with sunsets.

[@Karras353]

Indeed. And no amount of zooming in or out will change that. I can just about give some benefit of the doubt that the camera being a little bit low might be mere sloppiness and not intent to deceive. I'm probably being far too generous with that but it seems to me that doing it deliberately would assume that nobody else is going to try and recreate such a basic experiment. But even setting all of that aside the simple fact that it does not fit with what we see in the real world should be a massive red flag to them any anyone watching.

[@marylynne9104]

Exactly. Put three people, one on the beach, one on a ledge halfway up a cliff and the third on top of the high cliff. As the ship goes out to sea have each person call out as the top of the ship disappears from their view. No complicated equipment needed. If the person on the beach calls out first and the one atop the cliff calls out last, flerfs have some explaining to do. Or get technical and use synchronised stopwatches.

[@thebigmacd]

​​@@marylynne9104or watch the sun set from the base of Burj Khalifa, take an elevator to the top, and watch the sun set again three minutes later.

[@hippopotamus86]

Classic example of flat earthers adjusting their test method to get the result they want. And then closing their eyes and putting fingers in there ears when it's debunked.

[@grahvis]

Rob Skiba once made a video to explain how the Sun would disappear bottom first on a flat earth. It started with someone demonstrating refraction lifting a distant object by viewing through the top half of a convex lens. Skiba repeated the experiment, but to get the result he wanted, viewed through the bottom half of the lens, which had the opposite effect. Blatantly dishonest.

[@leftpastsaturn67]

@@grahvis If it hadn't shown what he wanted he'd have encased it in Bismuth and claimed victory anyway.

[@hansjansen7047]

Climate scientists adjust their methods AND criteria to get the result they get paid for.

[@maybedrinkin3241]

Yeah, this is the real problem with them. They don't actually want to learn. I'm afraid I've lost my patience with them over the years.

[@thewritingengineer]

As someone who works with lasers, optics, telescopes, irises and microscopes on a daily basis, I found that your explanation of optics was both amazing and easy to understand. Breaking a difficult subject like this into easy to grasp concepts is the hallmark of someone both knowledgeable and good at teaching. Thanks for the video Dave!

[@gazzie12000]

Why is the camera even at table level? On their flat Earth it would still need to work when viewed at every height ABOVE sea level. Because in reality, whatever height you are at, things disappear over the horizon bottom first. This "experiment" seems to suggest that they are only seeing things disappear bottom first when their eyes are at sea level? Whatever the observer's height (in the real world), things still disappear over the horizon, and still go bottom first. They need a demo with their camera at every single height to show what happens in reality. I'm not holding my breath for that experiment !

[@dalegreer3095]

Thank you! According to flerfs, we should be able to see the Atlas Mountains in Morocco from Miami, they're about 4,400 miles away, across mostly open sea, with nothing in between tall enough to obscure them. A good telescope should easily be able to make them out. For that matter, we should be able to see the "Ice Wall" from the coast of South Africa, it's only around 2,500 miles.

[@fakecrusader]

According to Eric Dubious and many flatwats, you never look down at the horizon. To follow this sacrament, your camera has to be at point where it doesn't look down. In fact they place it where it would need to look up, so this isn't even following flat earth dogma let alone reality. Double fail.

[@SpazzyGenius]

If we say the table is a model of the flat earth then the eyeline from even the top of Everest would be near level. Napkin maffs: earth is 196 million sqmi, let's say we have a 20 sqft table for rounding, our scale factor is 1 sqft/10 million sqmi. Everest is 5.5 mi, multiply by sqrt(1/10 million) {so we get the scaling units ft/mi} and you get .002 ft I think folding ideas's version is better since it's done at full scale

[@kikixchannel]

@@SpazzyGenius That's not how reality works though. Is the relative height of Mount Everest small compared to the surface area of the Earth? Yes. But the absolute height is the one relevant in this case, and that is massive. Remember. It's about the distance covered by arms of a triangle. Your eye wouldn't be able to see most objects too far away anyway (and obstacles would shorten that distance even more, anyway). That's why being on the ground your range of vision would be very small, since the angle to ground would be abysmal (aka. super sharp) extremely fast. But from Mount Everest? You'd have the same angle (45 degrees) when looking at Earth almost 9000m away as from ground level you would have from less than 2m away. For this experiment to have any sense whatsoever, the camera needs to be at an angle that is at least as large as the angle between a person and the ground/water at the horizon, which is at least a few degrees. That means that the camera needs to be above the table, completely irrelevant of the relative size. As anyone with any sense knows, if the surface is completely flat and obstacles free, you will always be able to see the base of an item so long as it is large enough for your eyes to see it at a given distance, so long as you are looking at it from any degree larger than 0.

[@rylanasher4756]

Exactly right!

[@violetfactorial6806]

A better demonstration would be to have the camera slightly above the surface of the table, because the camera is meant to simulate our eyes which are famously located slightly above the surface of the earth. I do get a laugh at the idea of flerfs shoving their faces into the dirt to look at the horizon though.

[@dogwalker666]

I had a flurf claim the viewer height was zero on a video, When I asked him if he had dug a hole to stand in he went very quiet.

[@Karras353]

To be honest I think I would disagree on this one. Because a zero elevation approach proves that even if taken to the ridiculous extreme, it still does not show what they claim it to. Proving that it does not work even when done on their own terms takes away any way of wriggling out of it. There are already some comments complaining that he did not move the object far enough back so the results are invalid, even though others rightly point out that in the flerfer version the objects are partially obscured immediately so that is beside the point. You can certainly point out that the experiment is fundamentally flawed because we can witness things disappearing from higher vantage points. You could argue that doing the experiment is pointless to begin with but if you are going to do it, its probably better to do it "properly". Including correcting the mistakes that they make (camera too low, etc).

[@charlieevergreen3514]

My eyes are famously 5’-7” above grade. Notoriously 5’-11” above grade in the clubbing days. And disappointingly 5’-2” above grade if I live to be 90 years old.

[@aralornwolf3140]

@@charlieevergreen3514 , Why do you expect your feet to be amputated by the time you're 90?

[@charlieevergreen3514]

@@aralornwolf3140 My feet are always trying to run off by themselves. Sneaky buggers will probably win that fight in my mid-eighties. Just a guess, though.

[@Kidd-In-Charge]

A CG artist would never make the “mistake” with the ISS window that he claims proves the footage was cgi. Only a camera lens could fuck that up

[@mangounit9678]

i imagine its harder to do with cgi than with an actual lens

[@deadturret4049]

Fr though. You'd have to intentionally change the rendering depth of those objects.

[@johnnye87]

That was my thought. Even if you don't know what causes the optical effect, it just doesn't look to the untrained eye like a "digital" mistake. If anything it looks like an effect that a digital artist would have to put in deliberate work to create. I realise that's kind of an argument from ignorance, but I suppose my point is "that looks more like an optical illusion than a digital artefect, so if you're trying to argue that it's the latter as proof of a joint US-Russian conspiracy, you'll have to be a lot more convincing than that."

[@WisteriaDrake]

It's amazing how they simultaneously believe that the government has access to revolutionary CGI as far back as the 60s and 70s that can fool entire generations of people, but at the same time, they also make unbelievably simple mistakes that a child could point out. Which is it? Edit: The answer is, "I IS SMARTESTEST PERSON IN WORLD, U R DUMMY!!1!11!"

[@deadturret4049]

@Spoutinwyze I'm pretty sure you're thinking of level of detail (LOD), which isnt the same thing. Im talking about the order things are rendered on screen.

[@jeromios]

People who don't understand cameras trying to do science with cameras.

[@maybedrinkin3241]

It gets even more basic, I think. People who don't understand science trying to be scientific. They always ignore relevant factors right off the bat.

[@ctsean]

I think it's more accurate to say: "People who do understand cameras use that understanding to create fraudulent experiments to convince ignorant people that they're doing science"

[@samratjpatil]

Do people really expect them to understand optics if their premise is 'flat-earth'?!

[@Jeffdombrowski-np4bb]

So according to flat earthers NASA spends billions of dollars every year to hide the flat earth but they can’t be bothered to hire a continuity director?

[@aden538]

Not just NASA, every government in the world. Also every professional astronomer and physicist. Pilots and sailors, too. Don't forget schools. And anyone with a telescope. And... you know, it's just everyone but them. Everyone but the flerf is in on it, and they are the lone hero fighting for the truth against the vast conspiracy for which there is literally no benefit.

[@dougallen9689]

somebody moved all the CGI budget to painting the dome.

[@nemasisdemarini8339]

This is the major problem with a good number of conspiracy theorists. A lot of them are genuinely just dumb or stupid. But a good number of them, are genuinely just narcissistic. They genuinely believe that they are the only clever people in the room, and that they could never be wrong about an assumption that they made. No matter when they made, or how informed they were when they did.

[@danielthompson3928]

@@nemasisdemarini8339 right, most lies are in plain sight anyhow.

[@richardbusta8899]

Nope they believe the world spends hundreds of billions to hide it.

[@expectnothing.]

My co worker is a flerf. I prove him wrong with so many scientific points but he doesn’t comprehend any of it and says I’m the idiot/ close minded one. Ive never been around someone so stupid

[@tjjones621]

make him get out the map he uses for turn by turn directions. then make him zoom all the way out. he will likely see the Mercator projection. ask him if Earth is a flat circle or a flat rectangle. just keep telling him it's HIS map, so...

[@ssnerd583]

i work with one as well....its amazing that these knuckleheads can get it ALL so TOTALLY WRONG but then say its YOU who doesnt understand.

[@brianashcraft1211]

Please name just one. Just one.

[@tjjones621]

@@brianashcraft1211 One what? One point that FE is a prank? Easy.

[@EdBoi18]

Oh what's worse is when they go to the Bible of all places to support their horseshit. 🙄😮‍💨

[@ReValveiT_01]

That Mitchell From Australia deception was a classic. Clearly he thought everyone was as dmb as him and wouldn't notice the obvious con.

[@leftpastsaturn67]

No, he knew his followers were dumb enough to not notice, or care.

[@ShizukuSeiji]

@@leftpastsaturn67 He doesn't care either as long as his monetized videos keep the cash flowing.

[@coyotezee]

He may just be careless and once he got the result he wanted, he did not explore further to test his observation. Anyone following him will only be fooled if they too do not think beyond what is presented.

[@leftpastsaturn67]

@@coyotezee Let's not be naive about it, if his observation didn't give him the result he wanted, he wouldn't have published it.

[@ReValveiT_01]

It's also worth noting that Mitchells camera was tilted upward slightly, causing the extending lens of his camera to physically rise up as he zoomed - thus revealing the coin. A very deceptive and very purposeful attempt to deceive his audience.

[@deemcgann1695]

CGI artist in training here. Things going through blurry things is NOT a cgi artifact XD

[@realdragon]

Btw how hard would it be to CGI something like that when camera is changing focus and things go through blurry things?

[@deemcgann1695]

@@realdragon not much harder if you know what you're doing. That's all video editing AFTER the CGI

[@Liggliluff]

With ray tracing (popular by RTX, but it's an old technique), it will simulate the light coming out of the camera and bouncing on things, and to a light source, to see what the camera sees (it's the reverse of real light, but it's a 100 % guarantee it only stimulates rays that lands on the lense). You can therefore similar blurred edges, since some rays will be obstructed by the object and some will pass through. It's more blurry when the lense is bigger.

[@joshm3484]

Sees proof of actual optical lenses in use. "Is this CGI?"

[@MrBrineplays_]

Even their own eyes, they call it cgi 😂

[@wellesmorgado4797]

@@MrBrineplays_ Just tried it, sitting in front of a desktop. The KZbin symbol "penetrates" a white sheet of paper exactly as the russians saw it with the antenna. Can´t get simpler than that.

[@tacticallemon7518]

@@wellesmorgado4797 but that disproves the earth isn’t flat, so they’ll make up some shit (my money’s on “that only happens with LED screens”) if they don’t admit cameras ≠ eyeballs

[@TheAzmountaineer]

I wonder how many good, knowledgeable photographers believe in a flat earth or are moon landing deniers. Just understanding how cameras work destroys a lot of those claims right off the bat.

[@forthphoto]

To understand how cameras work you have to have some basic physics understanding. That on its own destroys any chances of them believing the earth is flat.

[@ShizukuSeiji]

Flat earth belief is the domain of the uneducated.

[@sigisalmen2399]

I agree! And because they don't understand cameras, a lot of ppl yell FAKE. That's easier than getting some education

[@HomelessShoe]

I can understand where that fake moon landing thing comes from though. Back in the days it was technically impossible to stream (live) a video from space to Earth. According to Neil Armstrong in an interview I saw, the moon landing footage was faked (directed by the director that made the film 2001: A Space Odyssey), because it would be otherwise a rather boring audio stream with nothing visual to show to the public.

[@thedishonorableparasite]

I learned a lot about how cameras work when I was dealing with moon landing deniers 20 years ago, which was about the same time I bought my first DSLR.

[@danhitchcock727]

Imagine playing hide and seek with a flerfer! They would just run away but stay in plain sight thinking they disappear with perspective.

[@jocramkrispy305]

They would then deny that you found them.

[@leftpastsaturn67]

@@jocramkrispy305 And then yell 'I win!'

[@slowly-but-eventually]

This is so funny, I can easily imagine them doing that 😂

[@302ci1968]

I just exploded laughing and my cat jumped out of the bed ! I can see them hiding there, just in the middle of a field...

[@MattThomson]

Like when a little kid hides their eyes and think you can't see the rest of their body sticking out

[@draconis17]

Generally, when you can't see an object, there are 2 possible reasons for it: 1. It's behind something 2. It's too far away That's it. That's basic common sense. In the coin experiment, the coin is behind the table. When things disappear over the horizon, it's because the object is behind the earth. Because earth is a globe. It's not that hard.

[@stuartgray5877]

We can see stars that are Billions of light years away. Why does distance have anything to do with it? Light travels forever unless it hits something.

[@draconis17]

@@stuartgray5877 so you think you could see a coin from 100 miles away if there just wasn't anything in the way? There are limits to our eyes, eventually things will "shrink" out of existence as they get too far away. There are plenty of suns that we can't see with the naked eye because they aren't bright enough compared to how far away they are.

[@stuartgray5877]

@@draconis17 yes you could see a coin from 100 miles away with magnification. My point was that it is a little more complicated than these flat earth morons think I am an EE and work for the company that fixed hubble, built most of JWST, and all of the Kepler Space Telescope and the IXPE X-ray Telescope.

[@SlickBack-cq4qd]

Expect thats basically called vanishing point, which you will always see until it gets smaller smaller and goes away.

[@Robin93k]

3. It's in the blind spot of your eye! (Every human has these right in the middle of each eye, your brain just hides these holes in your vision, by "rendering" what it expects to see. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_spot_(vision) Because what you SEE is NOT Reality! Most importantly, it's not a raw camera feed from your eyes! Every person "sees" whatever their brain makes out of the information it has. That's also why optical Illusions like Fata Morganas exist and why humans see "faces" in everything. Unless they have mental disabilities, making them completely unable to recognise faces. Once you understand how eyes work, you know not to trust them! Only idiots need to see to believe. Because everyone that knows, knows not to trust what they believe to see!

[@302ci1968]

Flerfs just discovered proudly that a camera pointing through a perfectly opaque table cannot show the objects above the table. Wow. 6 yrs old? Nuh uh. 4...

[@ShizukuSeiji]

It is indeed a very sad state of affairs.

[@coyotezee]

As shown at 11:30 of Dave's video, the table is not obscuring the object. The image is not showing the object because of optical effect related to depth of field.

[@302ci1968]

@@coyotezee i was being sarcastic ;) I love photography and know a little bit how it works since the eighties ;)

[@mikeguilmette776]

They remind me of some of the Nibiru freaks who will do silly things like putting a floppy disk in front of the camera lens when taking pictures of the sun - they believe the iron on the disk "polarizes" the light - then claiming the garbage pictures they get show real things. They operate on their own special rules.

[@PattyManatty]

@@coyotezeethe table is obscuring the object. The demonstration at 11:30 effectively shows that the lens is effectively raised when zooming in

[@ShaneT5S]

“This must be CG because it goes through the window” Well actually if it was CG then they’d have the satellite asset in the distance still so it would go behind the window, not through it. That can only be done with lens distortion. Which is possible with CG, but not a priority, or something people think about unless they’re proficient with how cameras work

[@5peciesunkn0wn]

Maybe he thinks it's a 2d Animation and they had thr wrong layers selected?

[@sa9245]

"Which is possible with CG, but not a priority" Which makes it funnier. They think that with billions of dollars going into space programs they are still only hiring average CGI artists. If they hired good ones then they should be reproducing the expected optical effects.

[@Captain-Obvious1]

Literally EVERY flat earth experiment is like a "tribute" to the fact they don't understand what they are doing: Because the more they understand, the more it threatens the belief. And in the threads, that's ALL they try to assert: "We do, and you don't, so we're right". But their "evidence" never withstands any examination. That's why people who know this win EVERY single exchange with them. Its truly fascinating, watching them 🤡themselves.

[@dzgw]

It's always funny. They think they're going to unravel our understanding of physics with experiments that look like the kind you would do in school when you're 10 😂

[@Captain-Obvious1]

@@dzgw Look out for the bowl in the dark water thing they are using to "explain" how moon phases work. It cant do a gibbous moon, but let's ignore that.

[@worsethanhitlerpt.2539]

The table is flat, it looks like the floor, planets Flat too!

[@cobruh836]

i believe in quite a lot of conspiracy theories, but flat earth is one of those things where i always think "why would they even want to do that? especially since we all know what happened to galileo" it just makes no sense at all to me. so the establishment told us the earth is flat and executed people because of heresy if they had another opinion and now they suddenly flipped the script out of nowhere and try to hide the truth? - for what exactly? i mean sure the establishment is not the church anymore, but i still dont get it. its not like the new establishment has any stakes in the earth being flat or round, why would they even care which way it is? and im being generous with my thinking here, treating all "evidence" as relevant enough to assume it could be true then on the next level i have to ask myself why should i even care? im a warehouse worker. wether the earth is round or flat doesnt really change anything in my life. im not a scientist or astronaut. ofc i would be sad if it turned out to be flat and everything was fake, because i enjoy astronomy quite a lot, even though i dont understand too much of it.

[@Sensei-Ollie]

All the water would fall off if the earth was round.

[@BaconKiller360]

0:16 POV: you are driving up the hill so you can build up enough speed to make the stunt jump into the military base

[@stevopirate9017]

Sensational comment 😂😂😂

[@mattstanford9673]

The problem with that demonstration is that they put the camera slightly below the plane of the desk/table. It doesn't even try to take actual perspective into account, meaning slightly above the plane. Which would immediately destroy their argument. The only way this works is by beginning with an obstruction. ...and of course this is the first thing you cover, as I'm typing it. X'D

[@ziploc2000]

I've seen several flatties do this. They know they're doing this, and they know they're trying to deceive their audience. For this we can extrapolate that they know the Earth is NOT flat, and it's all just for KZbin clicks. Nathan Oakley did something similar on the floor, but put the object in a room that was down a step from the camera - again intentionally trying to deceive. It's a great litmus test for the ones that are deliberately lying, the ones that are just confused, and the ones that are truly stupid.

[@laurentwilliame2588]

And probably a slight pitch up for good measure…

[@spectre2575]

I'd never have thought that tiger photo was taken from behind a fence. You could take that to a party and come up will all manner of crazy anecdotes on how you got that shot.

[@evknucklehead]

If you look closely at certain areas of the photo, you can make out a faint shadow in the shape of the fence. But it's very subtle thanks to the way lenses work.

[@chrisbenson6683]

​@@evknuckleheadyeah; I would never have seen it without being told about it. Even now I only think I see it.

[@dodzb7362]

Some People are stupid. You don't need camera to prove. Come to ASIA, there are many islands, many islands disappear over the horizon. A 10 year old me instinctively tell the earth is not flat. EDIT: I am 30's now

[@PippetWhippet]

Even stupid people see the sun setting, getting larger as it sets and disappears below the horizon and conclude “I may not understand it, but this earth definitely isn’t flat”. Flerfers are locked in a cult, they have brainwashed themselves.

[@Fred2-123]

Ah, well, have they tried zooming in on the islands after they disappeared?

[@Aliyah_666]

Hey stop that, no logic allowed lol😂

[@sarahkatherine8458]

Hey, Asia doesn't exist. The only country in the world is the USA.

[@musickid43]

To travel there would require flying on a plane, which they can't do because children cannot fly alone on international flights.

[@Dad_Woof]

This video title is gold. Flat earthers confused by a table. They get confused by the simplest things to understand constantly.

[@calebhall812]

I think we can safely say that Flat Out Truth's camera is below the table because as the POV camera gets close to horizontal the reflection looks like an elipsis rather than a circle

[@lucasschigart2721]

flatearther not understanding why their nosebridge never obstructed their view significantly.

[@lenaotaku5905]

Best example right there.

[@flechedesneiges5114]

This one is a little bit different because your brain chooses to ignore your nose on purpose. It's evolutionary trained to do so.

[@jaade9485]

​@@flechedesneiges5114 false

[@flechedesneiges5114]

@@jaade9485 You can easily check that by concentrating on seeing your nose. It will appear in your vision, which would be impossible if it was masked by optic. :)

[@jaade9485]

@@flechedesneiges5114 yea its got nothing to do with "evolutionary training" specific to your nose tho

[@dorkangel1076]

Why do they never try this trick above the table? In reality objects still disappear bottom up when seen from elevation too.

[@tacticallemon7518]

because then you’d see their horseshit, and anything that doesn’t conform to their bullshit is fake

[@timtarbet4594]

I honestly like this guy’s style a lot better than basically all other flat earth debunkers. He approaches the subject with interest and curiosity, explaining the interesting nuances of the science without any insults or derogatory comments. Most debunkers at this point just treat flat earthers as subhumans to be laughed at and ridiculed rather than confused people who can be shown the truth.

[@chrisbenson6683]

The difference is essentially to be found in the focus (aptly enough, considering this video). The other debunkers are making videos for those who already understand the shape of the earth, whereas Dave aims his more toward those who are genuinely confused/questioning. Both have their place. That being said, I enjoy both but Dave's are likely to have more impact with the confused, IMO. He is harder to dismiss psychologically, which leaves viewers to grapple with the substance of the presentation rather than the style.

[@TransistorBased]

Part of the problem with this debate is that the flat earthers are nearly always smug and arrogant that they claim to know something that other people are too ignorant to understand. So a gentle and friendly lecture is very unlikely to break through their bubble of self-confidence

[@chrisbenson6683]

@@TransistorBased Dunning-Kruger's a b, huh? 🙄😖

[@FritzSchober]

This dog gets so much cuddle time... I'm jealous.

[@markcostello5120]

You don't have the same relationship with Dave. I'm pretty sure if you tried to sniff Dave's butt or crotch he might just give you a back hander. If you're lucky.

[@302ci1968]

I am thinking of asking an exchange with Dave's dog for my 10 month old australian shepherd. Who obviously is under cocaine all the time ;)

[@K_End]

​@@markcostello5120🤨

[@ShizukuSeiji]

@@302ci1968 I'm thinking of asking to sit in Dave's lap myself :)

[@Aliyah_666]

That's one happy doggo right there lol lol

[@gerarddip]

That dog straight up loves you bruh

[@sternonisoil]

Glad I'm not the only one distracted by the cute little pup. I'm watching this with my two German Shepherds laying down at my feet because the chair I'm in is too small for them to jump into my lap 😂.

[@punbug4721]

@@sternonisoil Well clearly the solution is a bigger chair lol

[@Helena-me6mp]

@@sternonisoil GSDs are so incredibly cute!

[@EricBurns1]

For your tiger picture and the fence not being visible, a similar example to that for the human eyes is if you play hockey with a cage helmet. I grew up playing hockey and when you wear the cage you just look straight through it and don't see any lines from it because you're focused on things behind it.

[@edwardpaulsen1074]

There is also the fact of the brain "filling in" as well.... the infamous "blind spot" on the retina is that location where the nerves and blood vessels go out on the optic nerves and there are no rods or cones... we normally don't notice it because our brains "fill in the blanks" but there are ways to trick the brain (and prove the spot is really there) by placing an object that is the same size and then move your eye so that object is only focused at the point there are no rods or cones and the object "disappears"... that is why the eyes are always jittering ever so slightly to shift that focal point back onto the rods and cones to "see" that missing part.

[@sebastianturner2458]

Similar deal with a fencing mask. It's a pretty respectable wire mesh, but it just looks like a bit of a tint when it's on.

[@NeverKilledHillock]

That's a nice random thing to know. I always wondered how the sight is impacted by the cage. Seems like it's similar to our nose bridge. Now I wanna wear such a helmet too, only to experience it for myself.

[@tampazeke4587]

Why is it that every Big Foot video, every ghost video, every alien video, and now, every flat earth table demonstration video, is blurry?

[@Random_Guy305]

Cause anyone that knows enough about photography and videography to take a good video wouldn't be dumb enough to believe crap like this

[@calebdrawsstuff4446]

I have 3 reasons for why I watch your content- 1: I like watching pseudoscience or dumb ideas be disproven. 2: The way you present in your videos and everything is just great! 3: Your dog is adorable.

[@statboy11]

You should watch James Randi. He's been debunking pseudoscience and psychics since the 70s

[@dragonweyr44]

I've NEVER understood the whole idea of the concept of "water finds its own level argument since a drop of water on a table, forms a half sphere. a bubble is a sphere

[@mr.commonsense]

Well you're just "magically" wrong I guess

[@gryph01]

​@mr.commonsense Really? Tell us how?

[@mr.commonsense]

@@gryph01 (explains with magic words of how you hallucinate water being round, even tho it's impossible. Or whatever bullshit excuse they use)

[@adamconroy2146]

A blob of solids and liquids and gas form a globe in an equally gravitationally distant from other over powering body's too close for accumulation, environment in general which has been repeated 1 or 689333235665467800075322567336624679087654478655 times in the observable universe, not once has anyone seen a flat world. Anti globalists should leave the obviously existent alone and all 17 of you should go and work for Dunny J DUMP.

[@PippetWhippet]

@@gryph01water forms a curved surface in a drop on a table due to forces between the molecules. These same forces cause a meniscus in a glass of water. Water curves around the earth due to its mass being attracted to the mass of rock underneath it. If mass is attracted to mass, then all matter will want to form stable spheres, including water. We found out it does and called that gravity.

[@gregr28]

I don't even know how young of a CHILD I was when I first understood perspective by appearing to "see an object through my hand" when it was in front of one eye and not the other. Or hold a finger up in front of my face while focusing on something behind it and I appear to have two transparent fingers. This is literally the exact same concept of how they create 3D images or movies on flat surfaces. Well, technically it's reversing that concept then isolating the images, but I'm pretty sure I don't need to explain that process to you. How have people reached adulthood and still don't understand these extraordinarily simple concepts. I will give them, I also didn't realize at first that that was how a lens focus worked, but as soon as I saw the aperture expanding, I instantly understood exactly what was happening.

[@xczechr]

You would think tables would be the one thing flerfs are good at.

[@jcudejko]

0:01 I love it when the dogs are like "no you are not allowed to stop"

[@aralornwolf3140]

Until it's a 100 pound dog smacking your ankle with their paw, repeatedly, because you stopped rubbing their belly...

[@Palalune]

Quick shoutout to tell you how much I appreciate your videos and dedication to detail. I'm always "yeah but what about..." and then you address it in the next sentence ;-)

[@DaveMcKeegan]

Thanks, I do try to cover all the bases

[@Henglaar]

Thanks!

[@PippetWhippet]

I’m a few seconds in and I already know this is when they put half the lens underneath the table! You can get the same effect in the ocean if you put half your eyeball under sea level. (Dig a hole in the beach, don’t try putting half your open eye into salt water!!)

[@Grimtheorist]

Goggles!

[@PippetWhippet]

@@Grimtheorist Yes!

[@Hawk7886]

You're not my supervisor! Oh man that kinda burns

[@theeffete3396]

When I put a cardboard tube up to one eye and hand in front of the other eye, it appears like there is a hole in my hand. According to flat earthers, though, I must be using CGI.

[@TROOPERfarcry]

I guess there's no harm in debunking this new flat-earth shtick, but to be frank, it doesn't seem like it's necessary, because it doesn't seem like they're arguing in good faith. I believe that they _KNOW_ what they're doing with the camera height, but are conveniently looking past it because to do so advances their narrative.

[@TheWretchedOwl]

The problem is that flat earth stuff is just the start of the pipeline, and the end of the pipeline is violent extremism. A lot, maybe even most, flat earthers have ulterior motives and aren’t arguing in good faith, but they’re still convincing people who do believe.

[@DarthGTB]

The issue isn't who publishes those videos, but who watches them. Whoever makes those videos know they are lying.

[@TROOPERfarcry]

@@DarthGTB That's a good point.

[@j0hn00]

​@@DarthGTB I can't imagine anyone smart enough to speak, record, create, and post a video on KZbin is stupid enough to do this experiment and not see the problems in person. But they know they'll get loooots of clicks from the silly crowd so they lie

[@methatis3013]

I think it's great these videos exist. Heck, just from this video, I learned more about how cameras work than I ever did in my entire life. I don't necessarily see these as a way to debunk flat Earth, but more as a way to teach interesting topics that don't get mentioned a whole lot

[@frankkutzler2758]

What these table people seem to be saying is that if my eye level is exactly at the level of the table, then the object seems to disappear from the bottom up. They claim it would be the same as if your eye level were exactly at the surface of the earth. But, if you left yourself a little higher on the table, the "bottom disappearing first" would vanish. If the eye level were, say 10 feet above the table, you'd the see the object in its entirely as it moved away. But with the earth the ship or whatever will *always" disappear, no matter how far above the earth you are. Even if you're on Alpha Centuri looking down at the earth, you cannot see all the objects on the earth. 1/2 of them will still be invisible.

[@The_Indubitabler]

As an amateur videographer still learning how every part of the camera works in tandem, I cannot express just how helpful the models like 5:40 are at visualizing what's actually going on. It crystallizes the complex physics and engineering so succinctly that I feel MUCH more confident in applying it to my own work. Your content is always top-tier and I feel like watching your channel serves both as a cathartic debunking experience, and also a masterclass in photography

[@mikefochtman7164]

As always, you do a wonderful explanation of how the optics of photography work. I showed my daughter how when she takes pictures of birds at her bird feeder through the window, her camera kept focusing on the screen over the window (lidar or ultrasonic sensor, not sure) and the bird was out of focus. By setting the focus to manual, she could focus on the bird and 'Voila!' suddenly the screen 'disappears'! Of course not sure that any flat-earther will bother learning more about photography, it doesn't fit their 'world view'. But the rest of us appreciate your explanations.

[@MikeDQB]

Having been a photographer for 20 years - I found your explanations of focus, focal length, depth of field, etc refreshing.

[@dainfuentes8168]

@daveMckeegan "Depth of focus" is an actual term in photography; it is essentially the inverse of depth of field. The two terms are not interchangeable. Depth of focus refers to the total distance between the near and far distances from the focal point of the image that is projected from the rear of a lens onto an image sensor. More specifically, it refers to the circle of confusion, but the result is the same. An imaging system that is collimated features a lens that projects an image to the exact plane in space that has been specified, i.e. the specified layer of the imaging sensor. Depth of focus, functionally, is the physical margin of error on the x-axis, the forward-backwards axis. If the sensor is just a little closer to the lens than it's supposed to be or just a little farther from the lens than it's supposed to be, you'll still be able to capture an acceptably in-focus image. These "little bits" are calculatable for all traditional lens-based systems, whether or not there's a sensor or recording medium. Thanks for all of your videos!

[@coyotezee]

The demonstration at 11:30 is the best part. It gives away why the others fail. Not only do they not understand the globe and perspective, they do not understand camera optics. This is an important feature to highlight, since a person generally does not know what they are ignorant of (by definition), but a wise person does not assume that they know everything relevant about a situation. They do additional research to learn more about the topics they have not studied to see if they can better explain what they are trying to understand and observe.

[@michelmln]

They have no clue about optics in general, not only camera optics. See their "demonstration" of how day and night works on a flat Earth...

[@jbz4788]

I don't think they'll accept this, you didn't use their favourite camera, and clearly that one must work completely differently to all others (/s)

[@mikefochtman7164]

Doesn't matter, they are now screaming that nikon discontinued the P1000 because NASA paid them off. Their 'favorite proof of flat earth' was getting too close to 'the truth' so NASA had to step in. LOL (but seriously, it is being discontinued but for business reasons with their merger)

[@MarceldeJong]

Haven't you heard? Nikon is discontinuing the P1000, because the flerfs were getting too close to the truth! Never mind that it's now a 6 year old camera. Or that the market for consumer-level cameras is drying up because of smartphones. Or that Nikon purchased RED Cameras and wants to pivot to more professional level cameras. Nope, it's got to be a conspiracy against flerfdom because the flerfs were getting too close to the truth!

[@natehill8069]

This table stunt reminds me of a deceptive (I know, redundant) TV commercial they used to have for some anti-perspirant spray. They sprayed brand X on someone's wrist (palm up) and then sprayed brand Y on the same arm, but close to the elbow. Then they pushed a cotton ball into each patch of spray. Then the person rotated their wrist to palm-down. The cotton ball near the hand (which went through probably 170 degrees of rotation, being near the hand) fell off, BUT the cotton ball near the elbow (which doesnt rotate when you rotate your wrist) and thus only went through about 30 degrees of rotation, does NOT fall off. Which proves, to no one at all, that brand X is better because it is dryer. As long as you spray it on your wrist, not your armpit.

[@C2Talon]

Assuming the footage at 3:22 isn't edited and the camera is actually level, the table's top is well above the center line of the frame, so the camera is definitely below the table. Compare this to 7:53, where the table's top is pretty much bang on center of the frame. Simply taking a screencap and putting horizontal line through the center is sufficient to determine that they didn't even do step 1 correctly, which makes their entire demonstration flawed. Going the route of showing the optics can't do what they are saying was an interesting way to go about it though, and probably the better way to do it since it's pretty easy to edit a video to crop the frame to make it look like the table was centered (or not).

[@jagheterbanan]

So according to flerfs objects should start disappearing bottom up after a couple of feet over a flat surface, unless of course we’re looking at spaghetti oil platforms then “we see too far” 🤔 Flerfs are really the masters of self debunks.

[@czyznaszmnie]

One thing that is highly significant is that in reality once you raise the observer height even slightly, you can increase the range of view, but then the object (i.e. ship going away) will still disappear later. Now tell flerfs to reproduce it on flat table...

[@hansjansen7047]

Well that one is easy, the object drops below the table top (SLOWLY)

[@mechtheist]

I don't know if anyone has addressed this so I will say it here. There are thousands of scientific and technical/engineering articles written _very year_ that would have to be in sync with this vast conspiracy or else it would get blown, a tremendous effort that would be extremely costly. On top of that, since they're faking it, there would have to be an equally vast effort required to make sure everyone was faking it the right way, unlike real science and technology where you do what you do and the results are what they are, no coordination needed to make sure Japanese, Russian, Chinese, European, etc scientists and engineers aren't contradicting each other. The only way to manage such a vast conspiracy would require more massive documentation, more massive costs. And this would be going on for at least 2 maybe 3 generations, involving millions and millions of folks, and NO ONE has spoken up, no one has leaked any dox at all? PLUS, I think no one would disagree that science and technology have massively progressed over that time. How do they do this? Well, there would have to be thousands of articles _every year_ about the 'real' science and engineering, again,all secret and, again, _none_ leaked? So you'd have the vast effort to write the fake dox, the vast effort to coordinate it all with secret documentation, and the vast effort to do the real science and tech and write all the equally secret dox. The cost would be absolutely mind boggling and why? FFS, why? And even more FFS is you'd start getting to the point where numbers of those in on it would rival the numbers fooled and again, just why?

[@yannickperret1586]

Yeah. It would involve so many efforts, and so many people from governements to ship captains, engeeniers, airships staff, etc. (including retirees) and *since hundred of years*! We may think that they should be more people knowing "the truth" than the others 😅 In fact if this is the truth then flat earthers are just a little group of too-stupid-to-deal-with-the-truth that were left in the ignorance to prevent them jumping into the border"s void!

[@nickierv13]

I forgot who said it, but its that thing where a certain president and a certain intern... and there is a leak in a party of two inside two years. Okay, maybe 4. Yet somehow, like you say, 'they' can keep it quiet? You also forgot the whole mess that is older stuff in art and architecture. Do the trivial task of calculating things back the appropriate number of years and you get stars and stuff just so happening to line up really close to relevant points? And your missing the part where anyone remotely clever can work out a lot of stuff on there own.

[@mechtheist]

@@nickierv13 Right and youi don't realize everything you said is either irrelevant or incoherent or both?

[@compfox]

Just one of my favourite arguments. A conspiracy becomes less and less likely the greater the number of people it takes to maintain it. It would need nearly half of the population to fool the other half in this case.

[@Tsudico]

@@compfox Not only is the number of people a factor, but the length of time the conspiracy has been around. I think there is actually a scientific paper on how likely conspiracies are based on number of people involved and the length of time of the conspiracy's existence.

[@PickledShark]

Close one eye and focus on a distant object. Hold up your finger up to your eye such that the edge of it is against the object you are focusing on from your eye’s perspective. Part of that object will now be visible through your finger. Flat Earthers: “OMG rEaLiTy iS CGI! pRoOf of siMUaTIoN!?”

[@greeftish]

Gotta lie to FLERF!

[@ReValveiT_01]

Always and without exception.

[@RivBank-o3j]

So true 😂You got to lie about the globe you gotta lie about what other flat earthers say you gotta lie about pretty much everything

[@greeftish]

@@RivBank-o3j Gotta edit posts to get them right, just like editing the evidence to make flat work lol.

[@Zumaray]

@@RivBank-o3j give us one, just one, the very best one you have…. Globe lie. And I’ll explain where you went wrong.

[@duck21567]

I think flat earthers know the world is a globe they just don't want to admit it because it would mean they'd have to admit they are incorrect.

[@joshuabarron8535]

Yup, because it would hurt their pride.

[@DekuTheDestroyer]

I knew someone who 100% honestly believed in the flat earth

[@duck21567]

@@DekuTheDestroyer it crazy really how people can believe in such a thing.

[@samuilzaychev9636]

@@DekuTheDestroyer LMAO my classmate in a nutshell! He even is confused as to how we have a picture of our galaxy. I told him we just have a 3d model constructed by the countless photos - he didnt listen😭! Classic flerf ig

[@5peciesunkn0wn]

@@duck21567 there are only two genuine flat earthers. the mentally ill and the proudly ignorant. Pity the first, mock the latter, shame the trolls and the grifters who prey on the first three.

[@YOYOTh1s]

Love how flat-earthers try to claim victory when they just fundamentally misunderstood something!

[@Gandhi_Physique]

I mean, the only way they can be "correct" is with fundamental misunderstandings.

[@CmputrAce]

Demonstration that some (most/all?) flat earth youtubers KNOW that the arguments are false and have to rig their demonstrations. They aren't about truth, they are about followers and keeping them.

[@aaftiyoDkcdicurak]

Sounds like religious people.

[@nonamemcnotaspy8654]

Nice to see a dog with a emotion support human

[@Richardj410]

Nice job bring down the complexity of a camera lens. So much math goes into designing those lens that many people would not get it.

[@mikefochtman7164]

So true, but Dave here at least gives us a 'gut understanding'. Big aperture, more things out of focus, pinhole size and more things in focus. Things really close can practically disappear they get so blurry.

[@distinctdipole]

Flerfs confused by reality!

[@ExecutorQ3]

10:00 i'm pretty sure the dog's thoughts are smth like "omg hoomans are so dumb... keep scratching!"

[@Kualinar]

Mitchel forgets/ignore 3 frames during witch the camera is still moving down... That's almost as bad as the cut 11 frames from his infamous colleague. Blurring due to change of focal point, or another thing that LEO can't accept and can't understand, or, just can't. So, LEO can't focal blur.

[@aethertoast4320]

So we gotta play the game of " Deceit or Incompetence" on their footage? A classic with all Flerf experiments.

[@Choalith_Ikanthe]

It's all deceit. They are intellectually and ethically bankrupt. It's not simple incompetence, because of how readily they will doctor evidence and try to cheat at the tests. It's like a two year old with chocolate all over their lips insisting there's no way they stole cake. They know they ate the damn cake, but they will swear up and down so hard, that they'll begin to believe their own lies. This is why discipline is important. This is why we have an entire generation of people who think their feelings are more important than reality. People who will sabotage the meanings of words, gaslight about biological processes, live in denial about historical facts, and pretend the world is flat. There is no proof that will ever.... EVER... satisfy them, because until they group up, reality is just an argument they need to win.

[@fakecrusader]

That game has an add-on pack: "Delusions of competence" - it may have been featured.

[@Frankthetank-zr5mc]

The most amazing thing is that you actually answer the “science” of these misinformed folks. The earth is round boys.

[@sethr.c1065]

I got 2015 style brain rot. When the guy zooms his camera in to reveal the coin, I expect to see an Office character staring back placidly.

[@memkiii]

So. Bottom line. Flerfers deliberately fake results to suit their narrative, and assume everyone else doesn't notice. Who would have guessed it? & OH! that Tiger shot!

[@CadillacDriver]

We've known this for many years.

[@mattm8870]

Ah the good old having the camera below the table and focusing tricks.

[@victorfinberg8595]

... and if you pay close attention to what my right hand is doing ...

[@c.augustin]

Your explanation of how DoF works was absolute gold! I'm 60+ by now, have twiddled with optics of various kinds (including camera lenses) for at least 45 years and have some understanding of optics - but this was the first time I really understood what's going on. You are a really, really good teacher! Flerfs are just so mentally challenged that they are completely unable to learn anything beyond the simplest things, while many of them look quite normal (some don't, though).

[@mpucoder]

If you got through the explanation of the effect of the iris on depth of field, you can now understand why studio lighting is so bright. Yes, we have cameras that can shoot in less light without noise, but because the iris needs to be open the DOF is very small. With more light we can close down the iris and get a deeper field in focus.

[@shassett79]

I wonder how many flerfs just don't know how cameras work? But then again, I'm not even sure you need to understand optics to debunk the table thing since anyone can do the following experiment: - turn your head sideways and put it up against a table - position the eye closer to the floor so its view of the table's far edge is partially obscured by the table's near edge - open and close your eyes alternately, and notice that the higher one can see farther than the lower one

[@dogwalker666]

Flurfs can't camera!

[@TerryProthero]

Are you kidding? They don't even know how tables work much less cameras.

[@leftpastsaturn67]

They know how to focus them when the camera is filming what they want their followers to see, but somehow 'forget' when pointing them at stars.

[@GeistView]

The 2 main problem with the Flat Earthers "table" argument are. 1) If the table is the Flat Earth then the camera needs to be ON the table, not off the edge of the table. They have to put the lens ON the table. 2) Flat Earthers will say the Earth is FLAT but not really FLAT it has hills. mountains and depressions. The ocean has crests and troughs so it's also not FLAT. They can't use a FLAT table and say that is the FLAT Earth then turn around and say the Earth is not FLAT.

[@Tater4200]

They get confused REALLY EASILY...

[@worsethanhitlerpt.2539]

The table is rising at me at 8 meters/ per second! oh shit

[@manichon]

I've been an amateur photographer for around 20 years and this is the first time I've fully understood the relationship between aperture size and focus. that's awesome, thank you.

[@strippinheat]

It is embarrassing that in 2024 we are still having to waste time explaining to people that the Earth isn't flat.

[@chrisbenson6683]

Have to ❎ Want to ✅ (apparently)

[@Сашка-ш9м5ф]

I think most do it just for sport and to educate others on crossing subjects. Flat earthers are unteachable, so nobody would seriously waste time on them.

[@alexanderjanssen38]

Exactly. It's just depressing really.

[@LexyThomas134]

Flat earthers confused about a flat surface lol

[@lookatthatcreature]

Wouldn’t you want the camera a big above the table because we aren’t aligned with the ground like that we are a bit above

[@PeterBee911]

When you hear them blabbering stuff like "This is ridiculous", "They are lying to us", "We know the truth" with an half condescending, half disillusioned voice like the guy in the last video, it's soooo hard to feel any kind of empathy for them. At this point, they really are just a waste of oxygen and space.

[@lenonkitchens7727]

Wait a minute though. In addition to everything you mentioned and did, wouldn't the camera have to be above the table for this to be a valid experiment anyway? I mean, on a flat earth, nobody's line of sight is perfectly level with the plane. IMO, FE would have to show this effect happening with the camera above the table for it to have any chance of being meaningful.

[@302ci1968]

Perfectly reasonable. That's why there's no chance any flerf would do that. (Or even understand it) ;)

[@mikefochtman7164]

That's a good point. Set the camera ON the table. Although I saw one that set the camera on a floor and tried to use that to prove flat earth. But it looked like the floor wasn't 'flat' anyway, so.... 'gotta lie to flerf' again.

[@ziploc2000]

That's the point, they try to con their audience by putting the camera below the table surface. It works on their Flattie audience because they are intellectually challenged, but not on normal people.

[@cearnicus]

_"wouldn't the camera have to be above the table for this to be a valid experiment anyway?"_ Well yes. But remember that the goal of flatearthers isn't truth or valid experiments, but attracting followers. For that, the camera doesn't need to be above the table, you just need to _say_ it is. And since it agrees with flerf's misunderstandings, they'll swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

[@lenonkitchens7727]

@@cearnicus Yeah, I get that. I guess my point is that I'm surprised that Dave didn't call it out.

[@InertiaCreeps]

04:41 *FACE PALM* this is so monumentally idiotic. You can literally see the table in FRONT of the lense. If they want to prove bottom up disappearance *ON* a flat earth, put the damned lense *ON* the stupid table, better yet on a nice long flat floor. The fact that the lense will be a fraction of an inch “above” the floor shouldn’t matter as long as the floor is long enough for them to move an item away and show us all how stupid we are for doubting them! This seems like intentional deception and makes me wonder once again how many of these Flerfs are faking it.

[@mikefochtman7164]

Yeah, I thought so too. And one of them where they show the camera setup at the end of the table, looks to me the camera is clearly tilted 'upwards' to the edge of the table. Come on... how obvious can it get?

[@grahvis]

Ranty once put a couple of small objects on the ground at one end of a 100-metre running track. They were still in full view from his camera on the ground at the other end.

[@KeithMilner]

@@grahvis and now, he's no longer a flat earther.

[@grahvis]

@@KeithMilner . Like Tiger Dan when he tried to make a flat earth map using a few known distances and found it was impossible.

[@kberken]

I thought so too. He spends way too much time dealing with the center of that lens. Nobody looks at things from ground level but at the height of their eyes. But.... I think he was just countering the video by the Australian, showing its flaws.

[@jamescollins8397]

4:00 - Ask Mitchell why we can see the underside of the table in his demonstration if the camera is set up correctly

[@shaneh7519]

13:50 again flat earthers don’t understand how cgi works. When manipulating footage you work in layers, the window would be placed in front of the satellite dish (a higher layer) which means what he observed would never happen. Seeing that literally disproves his claim it is cgi lol

[@Slimmeyy]

I don't think this is fully accurate, as opacity can be changed for specific sections. However that would take so much pixel-perfect editing that it's practically impossible.

[@brag0001]

​@@Slimmeyy true, but the main point remains: in CGI this requires extra effort and isn't what would happen in a naive implementation ...

[@fakecrusader]

You could have put the foreground layer too far back and have the backgound not being masked, which is what Low Esteem Oddball is implying, so it's a fair claim if it were CGI footage. Except it's not.

[@Snommelp]

There's no way mitchell, the only one to "show" that the camera was level with the edge of the table, just *happened* to use a reflective surface that obscured the far end of the table. He knew exactly what he was doing.

[@bryonnoel4254]

A more accurate test is to have the camera lens above the table. Everything we observe on the earth is from 1.5-2m above the surface. Even if lie down on the ground we are still above the surface. When we look at the horizon we are looking down ever so slightly. I also have an amazing photo of an ancient boat that was in a room curing with resin for a very long time. The photo was taken through glass that was reinforced with wire and coated with mist on the inside. Yet when I took the photo, the glass, wire, and water droplets are not visible as they were very close to the camera and blurred out. I could see the boat better in the photo than with the naked eye. pretty cool...

[@tjjones621]

A even more accurate test is to ask the flerf to use his map of Earth for turn by turn directions to IKEA to buy the table... :)

[@tstephens128]

I am perplexed why there is even a debate on the shape of earth in this modern age, with so much evidence, even from ancient sources. Did some very bored person sit around one day with their friends and say, we can create a movement that is absurd, and people will follow it like lemmings.?? seems to be the case, maybe we should find the person that started this movement, and give them a Noble prize for proving just how gullible people can be.

[@mishawnuodo1]

For the same reason people think lemmings follow each other even off a cliff- because someone made a documentary and said so. In truth, the lemmings were crowded onto a spinning table top over water and spun off to make it look like they were following each other. Now, after being shown the truth, if they were intelligent, they'd stop... but they aren't so they keep telling the lie debunked 6000 years ago. The other reason is that this plays into the Christian geo-centric universe model (along with the return of creationism and other debunked theories) which Churches and Conservatives are trying to use to dumb down the population and return them to obedient slaves who accept their role in life as disposable labor sources that are kept starving to keep them obedient to their "betters" (clergy and wealthy).

[@frankyanish4833]

I am perplexed why there is even a debate on the existence of God in this modern age, with so much evidence, even from ancient sources. Do you see where the issue lies?

[@mishawnuodo1]

@@frankyanish4833 by definition, there is no evidence. Evolution on the other hand, there's plenty. But then again, it's like flat earth... Let's see who's gullible and compliant enough to believe bullshit

[@electroborg]

IMHO the flat earth society has been resurrected by the need to lump all conspiracy theorists into the same category, and possibly as a preemptive strike against people who think Antarctica is hiding something (which is a reasonable assumption, because devoting an entire continent to "science" is completely at odds with what is done to the rest of the world, by the same rulers).

[@jaroslavpesek6642]

​​@@frankyanish4833 What evidence? Is there somewhere fosil of god?

[@whycantwegetalong4465]

Mitchell's footage can be disproven when he lowers the camera you can see by the chairs either side that the lowest seen part of chair is about an inch higher than the back of the table. My dog is also a fan.