Does a Flat Earther know more about photography than photographers?

[@nominalsofar3831]

I love that the flat earth guy says "if you're ignoring a bunch of experts there's something wrong with you" with zero irony regarding his own position ignoring 1000's of experts. You couldn't make this sh*t up.

[@emilschw8924]

This was repeated twice! 😂

[@Kemkachi]

All scientists are in on it🤦🏼‍♂️😅

[@ReValveiT_01]

Zero self awareness is vital if you want to become a flat earther.

[@erin1569]

You're so wrong He's disagreeing with millions of experts

[@slowly-but-eventually]

I didn't even catch that haha Good observation!

[@John_Mack]

So, let me get this straight... A flat earther believes he knows more about a subject than an expert in the subject? Sounds legit.

[@paull8678]

They always do. I once showed a FE'er a chart from the US Navy that includes corrections for curvature and coriolis when calculating naval artillery shots, and the FE'er told me that the Navy included those things for no reason because these things "are not needed" and then proceeded to give me a grade school interpretation of a heavy object flying through the air.

[@delayedcreator4783]

thats the dna of flat earthers

[@Malicious2013]

I hereby claim that I am more of an expert of Flat Earth theories than Flat Earthers, and thus, I know more than they do. I, the expert of FE, hereby deem the Earth a globe!

[@NoFormalTraining]

The same logic that anti vaxers have towards scientists.

[@NoFormalTraining]

@@paull8678 Now there's a thought, maybe someone can contact the Navy to ask them to demonstrate what happens when you do make use of corrections for artillery shots, and what happens when you don't? Failing that, there's about a hundred gun youtubers out there who'd probably have access to, or can get access to an artillery cannon.

[@gbprime2353]

You gotta admit, Flatzoid trying to claim that photographs are somehow not proof just plays to his long game of saying "nuh uh" to any evidence that proves him wrong. I mean, he's wrong about that too, but this takes him one step closer to saying that proof isn't proof. Anyway, well explained as usual, Dave!

[@Bunny99s]

Yes, his potential excuse could be to claim that because there are "different results" photographs are not reliable. That was often an excuse. "Here's an example where a scientist once said something wrong or contradictionary so it's all just wrong or doesn't make sense".

[@mhicaoidh1]

@@Bunny99s yep it's called "cherry picking your data".

[@gbprime2353]

@@mhicaoidh1 Here's a photograph! Oh, that's just one photo. Okay, here's several photographs! No, because there are slight differences between them. Behold the power of the "nuh uh" argument. -.-

[@keit99]

Well that's the toddler style of arguing 'I want you to be wrong, so you're wrong' => Flatzoid is like a toddler

[@h.a.9880]

The thing is: Flatzoid isn't open to logic and debate, this is a religious debate and he's a zealot, who thinks of himself as an elightened being, entrusted with the sacred truth. You will never break through to him. But anyone on the fence will see proof and go "Well, Flatzoid's full of shit."

[@eplane]

Dave explains basic photographic principles to Flatzoid who deliberately misunderstands everything…..

[@cobalt4045]

I'm sure we'll see Flatzoind demonstrate Dave's points much the same way as last time when Flatzoid failed to explain the 'universal up' that flerf clings to in order to mock the spherical model and map.

[@KarlStevens]

It's not really a basic principle though - I know many photographers (including professionals and photography teachers) who think lens compression is a function of the lens and not working distance. (When I was first starting I took it as gospel, until I read a comment on a photography article and decided to try the crop experiment myself. The article author - along with many readers - refused to acknowledge that it wasn't a property of focal length.)

[@mooneyes2k478]

Film at 11.

[@fakecrusader]

Don't tell these idiots about tilt-shift photgraphy, that will be their new explanation...

[@eplane]

@@fakecrusader sssssshhhh….!!!

[@frankyg2384]

Flatzoid: You're wrong if you ignore experts. Also Flatzoid: I'm ignoring experts.

[@robadams1645]

I have a dream: someday I want to see a flat Earther admit they were wrong. Not even about a big thing, just about one small thing. Instead of doubling down or moving the goalposts. Debunkers do it all the time. When they make a mistake or get new information, they own up to it and explain the impact on their discussion. I have yet to see a flat Earther ever admit even the slightest error or inaccuracy.

[@sendintheclowns7305]

Narcissists never admit fault and ALL flat earthers are narcissists.

[@synthetic240]

When FTFE debates younger, more polite, flat earthers he's had some success at changing their minds.

[@Requiem4aDr3Am]

I can think of a handful of flerfs who have admitted they were wrong and are no longer flat earthers.

[@grahvis]

@@Requiem4aDr3Am . A notable one being Tiger Dan who attempted to make a flat earth map using known distances, and realised it was impossible.

[@MrJonnyharry]

How’s Rachie doing at the moment?

[@ExploringNew1]

Imagine looking through your finderscope of your telescope to point an a distant mountain and when you look through the main telescope, it had suddenly dropped down 😂😂😂 Flatsoid's brain is flat 😂

[@DaveMcKeegan]

Everyone knows you have to mount your finder on an incline to offset the drop of the main scope .... don't they?

[@ExploringNew1]

@@DaveMcKeegan yeah! BTW this was just a joke

[@jeffmartin-g8r]

Dave, you are a really good designer of arguments: the narrative, the experiments, and the supporting graphics are absolutely top notch (I design software training curricula; your videos are compelling and definitive). I appreciate how much time you put in to so effectively debunk spurious claims. Thank you!

[@stretch3281]

Well said.

[@cliff.allister]

Yeah, but its all in vain because the flerfers will never listen to logic and reason. They live in their bubble of scientific illiteracy and intellectual ignorance, combined with the Dunning-Kruger feeling of superiority. Trying to educate them is a lost cause!

[@RevGary]

​@@stretch3281not one but two arse kickers here 🤡🤡

[@Requiem4aDr3Am]

Flatzoid is just another in a long line of flerf grifters. Just glad people like you are around educating the people who seem to rely upon youtube for all their information.

[@dougr8646]

Please even Dave Is a grifter

[@Requiem4aDr3Am]

@@dougr8646 by all means provide your evidence. If you cannot then we can ignore your claim.

[@tysondog843]

@@dougr8646 How is Dave being deceitful and or fraudulent, the fundamentals of "grifting"?

[@delayedcreator4783]

@@TheSkyfolk like a true flerf

[@Tsudico]

@@dougr8646 Merrium-Webster defines grift as "to obtain (money or property) illicitly (as in a confidence game)" so a grifter is a person who grifts. Please provide evidence that Dave is trying to obtain money in an illicit manner.

[@timolynch149]

That was beautifully explained, thank you. Let me present you with the counter-argument I expect: Nuh-uh

[@maxdanielj]

Or "but the guy from the history channel says..."

[@isaacbruner65]

Usually the "counter-argument" from flerfs is just to ignore the evidence and bring up something completely unrelated but equally incorrect about water always finding its level or people being upsidedown in Australia or something like that.

[@timolynch149]

@@isaacbruner65 Oh, don't forget 'let me make up some shit about perspective or optical effects'

[@synthetic240]

Flatzoid: The horizon is just optical! Also Flatzoid: **Looks at objects that aren't the horizon or even near the horizon.**

[@xczechr]

According to flerfs, they know more about everything than any experts do.

[@blankityblankblank2321]

I've seen comments in one video telling a pilot that he was wrong about how flightpaths look and how the instruments are wrong, and then tell him "well did you take one apart " to which the pilot said yes, to which the FL told him "did you take a look at the programming". FLs are so far gone that it seems sane idea that an entire industry is making deceitful equipment when said equipment could cause disasters killing hundreds just to deceive pilots who wouldn't care what the earth was shaped like as long as they understood it.

[@ReValveiT_01]

Flerf : "Zoom raises objects back up from over the horizon". Also flerf : "Zoom makes objects sink down below the horizon". Gotta contradict yourself constantly to flerf.

[@clivedavis6859]

Flatzoid: "momentum is not conserved indefinitely" Also Flatzoid. "gas particles are continuously moving in all directions and collide with perfectly elastic collisions"

[@jasonlowery1369]

What he forgot to add is that you have to turn the camera upside down to reverse the effects - that way it can do both 🙄

[@thedishonorableparasite]

Debunking Flatzoid's claim without doing any further experiments or using any knowledge about photography (which I have btw): Let's assume he's right and the background at the bottom of the image "drops" relative to the foreground when using a longer focal length. So, the lens would have to "know" what is up, down, left and right, because otherwise one would notice that any background stuff near the other three edges of the photo would also move towards and/or beyond these edges. Or there is some totally unknown law of physics that makes light from distant objects behave in such a way, which wouldn't make any sense because then the light would have to "know" the focal length of the lens. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason why photons that were reflected by a hill five kilometers away would hit a 35 mm lens but not a 800 mm lens which is in the exact same place.

[@LucTaylor]

We live in a society where most people think mirrors invert on the x axis, rather than the z axis and can't explain how the mirror "knows" the difference between left and right vs up and down and don't seem to care. Meanwhile, I move my hand to the right in front of my bathroom mirror and magically the reflection moves right too.

[@Yehan-xt7cw]

" _Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason why photons that were reflected by a hill five kilometers away would hit a 35 mm lens but not a 800 mm lens which is in the exact same place._ "True. Just place 2 cameras, same modell but different lens right next to each other, both at the same height, then see if those hills are visible in one but not the other.

[@RustyWalker]

So what would happen if you turn the camera upside down?

[@arizali_]

@@RustyWalker MAGIC 🪄

[@Fred2-123]

@@Yehan-xt7cw Well, since the flat earthers never do an experiment themselves, they would not believe your evidence.

[@vudejavudeja]

Watching flat earth debunking videos became a hobby for me years ago because I learned so much about physics, optics and space along the way (Shout-out to German channel Flo+). I grew tired after a while because all the big "players" on each side seemed to focus on quick laughs and ridiculing each other, because they realized those videos are easier to make, which also means more money. That's why I like your videos so much as you joined the game late but you keep on making quality videos, packed with interesting facts. Keep up the good work!

[@kernicterus1233]

Not only do we get excited to hear how you will explain a phenomenon calmly and politely, or if Rusty is going to play/sleep/run off, but the waiting for your sponsorship segue is just as much a thrill - and this was as smooth as smoooooth.

[@Eduardo_Igirisu]

Thanks for your spot on assessment of my photos. It was indeed just three quick shots to show something that we all know… that things don’t move because of focal length change. (Eduardo is a pseudonym - I’m actually one for Flatzoid’s resident ‘trolls’, Andrew Johnston)

[@AkatarawaJapan]

And you have a Japan connection in your pseudonym? The plot thickens.

[@awatt]

Are you free?

[@Eduardo_Igirisu]

@@AkatarawaJapanI’ve been rocking this handle for many months and you’re the first person to make a comment about my name.

[@ameldancalippo6912]

Flatzoid: “There are a teams of experts…..so if you are saying that they are wrong then there is something wrong with you”. Forgetting the teams of physics experts that say he’s wrong about the earth.

[@isaacbruner65]

This is actually pretty much par for the course when it comes to Flatzoid. He can trust like five people who run a channel on KZbin as experts when they say what he wants to hear, but not the thousands of people who say the Earth is an oblate spheroid.

[@Isolder74]

This is why cherry-picking is such a diabolical form of lying. It uses the appeal to authority and the out of context lie of omission. It’s a way to lie while pretending to tell the truth.

[@noneofyourbusiness7055]

That people like Failzoid (who has repeatedly lied, faked experiments, and manually deleted frames of evidence against him from a video so he could claim it was evidence FOR his position) have chosen to censor me and others from their comment section tells you all you need to know. *edit: having now seen your video, I expect Failzoid to cry foul & sh1t-talk in his echo chamber but refuse to provide a concrete answer to your challenge. *edt2: knowing some of his history, I should've known that he'd half-bake it, then retroactively lie to claim victory even though he failed to get the correct answer. #GottaLieToFlerf

[@gowdsake7103]

Of the many flatzoid is one of the most dishonest

[@noneofyourbusiness7055]

Is he? When they are questioned or cornered, I'd struggle to name a single flerf who's _more_ honest...

[@RealBLAlley]

So he basically learned a new word that marginally qualifies as sesquipedalian and decided that was enough to debunk all photographic evidence of the world upon which we live. Debunking these idiots and grifters is fun, but I watch this channel to learn more about photography due to the excellent explanations.

[@PeteC62]

You are Stephen Fry, and I claim my £5.

[@FokkeWulfe]

I too learned a new word that definitely qualifies as sesquipedalian. I also invented a new word, "plagiarism." Good day for all, I'd say.

[@wattouk]

Flatzoid knows all about video editing. Has he found those 11 missing frames, yet?

[@do_notknow_much]

...I believe Critical Think did a bit more analysis and discovered 13 frames were missing.

[@SuV33358]

I prefer 'Flatty' myself😊

[@manuelgomez4836]

Hahaha....was thinking exactly that. Flatzoid does not deserve any attention.

[@c.augustin]

@@do_notknow_much 13 frames? A bad number, foreboding …

[@ryannorris6128]

I really enjoy how you apply principles of the scientific method in your debunking. Many flat earthers claim they don’t trust what they can’t observe themselves, and you put in so much effort to be fully transparent about your methods, parameters, measurement tools, etc. so that anyone can replicate these experiments themselves. I appreciate your approach to debunking flat earth, because so it’s much easier to simply scoff, dismiss, and make fun. Instead you go to great lengths to reveal the truth behind each and every little argument and detail, leaving les and less oxygen for their pseudo-science and ambiguous arguments to exist. Keep up the great work!

[@c.augustin]

And anybody can learn something about photography and imaging in the process - that's the genius of Dave McKeegan! I followed him years ago when he was "just" a photography channel (a decent one), but got bored and unsubscribed. This year (or maybe sometimes last year) I stumbled upon him again and saw that he applies his talents on debunking flerfs with photography (and the underlying theories), and I'm now subscribed again - the only flat-earth related content I actually still watch and enjoy on a regular basis.

[@fakecrusader]

And what they 'observe' isn't what they see anyway. Your retinas receive a flipped image of the world which is then processed to fit our orientation. That's a shitload more processing in your own built-in camera than any shonky camera lens theory. Morons gotta be 'special' though ;)

[@ryannorris6128]

100%.

[@a-blivvy-yus]

The lack of this kind of care in their argumentation is part of why I've stopped watching some of the other flat earth debunkers I've seen in the past. I still respect their intelligence but their choice to belittle and ridicule the other side without engaging in good faith (especially when dealing with a flat earther who seems to be doing so) means I don't respect their content any more. Dave manages to show the same respect he's asking of others, presenting things in a fair and useful manner.

[@henryb1555]

​@@a-blivvy-yusrespect their intelligence? Really? They are simply not exhibiting any intelligence.

[@whereswa11y]

Oh I just love it. Well done. Of course you just gave Flatzoid an excuse to not get around to rebutting my video of Skegness windfarm

[@ReValveiT_01]

I often go to Skegness and the distant turbines can easily be seen to be 'dipping' their blades below the waterline with the naked eye. Spoiler alert, flatty's, no amount of "zoom" alters that in the slightest.

[@hartmutholzgraefe]

I bring the wind farm north of Heligoland as an example ever so often when flerfs ask me to do "my own research" on horizon issues, telling how the rotors further away "touch" the water even though they don't look much smaller horizontally, how I know that they are all the same size and height from having taken a boat trip to the park, and how walking up the ca. 50 meter cliff right next to the beach makes them "dip into the water" a little less. Also mentioning that the amount of dip is the same when looking at them (or at ships partially behind the horizon as there often are a lot just waiting for entry into Hamburg harbor getting granted to them) with the naked eye, through binoculars, through my wifes not-a-P-series Nikon camera, or when nicely asking one of the bird spotters with their monster tele lenses that easily dwarf the P1000, and even some smaller amateur astronomers telescopes easily whether I may have a look through theirs. Pretty much always ends the "conversation" there and then. Honorable exception: the guy that originally claimed that zoom brings back ships over the horizon, who after my "no, it doesn't, I tried it myself" came up with "it only works 10% of the time"

[@calabrais]

I have no idea why algorithm gods decided to suggest this to me, but now I'm hooked like it's a cheezy 90's soap opera 😂 You got a new subscriber.

[@sthurston2]

Thanks Dave. Please do another video rather than just updating this one. That would be more enjoyable for us bystanders. I noticed Flatzoid saying "... by the way photography online is a whole bunch of experts, not just one guy. They're a team of experts. They are really good at what they do, so if you're saying they're wrong, then there's something wrong with you." Is Flatzoid advocating BELIEVING EXPERTS now? What, like seismic experts such as PhD Tony? Navigation experts like Tiny Captain? Is Flatzoid feeling OK? He sounds a bit Globerish. Oh and IF Flatzoid were correct, wouldn't that mean taking the photo with the camera upside down should make the Earth look concave instead of convex. Also taking a photo with the camera on its side should shift the parallax to one side or the other. Yet that doesn't happen in reality. You know, like the camera has nothing to do with it.

[@markjohnson7887]

You should take the S off of the word "knows" in the title

[@jor-elmasterofscheduling2002]

Nope, too late. He made a mistake. Flat Earth confirmed 🤪

[@Froggsroxx]

Honestly it captures the feeling of flat earth perfectly lol

[@robertcatuara5118]

Maybe it's like maths vs math. 😉

[@DreadEnder]

It’s about flat earthers, fight bad logic with bad grammar

[@skateboardingjesus4006]

"Does" should get an extra *n't* and immediately precede the word "know(s)".

[@wickywickyjoka]

Let me do my best flerf impression: You can clearly see these pictures were taken at different times of day, and temperature fluctuates throughout the day/night cycle. Matter is known to respond to temperature changes, growing and shrinking in particular. It's the difference in temperature changing the size of the objects at coicidentally the exact amount needed to create this very, very special scenario.

[@Yehan-xt7cw]

TBH, these pictures _were_ taken at different times. There is at least a few minutes between the first and the last. Ofcourse this would make no difference at all, but knowing flerfs....

[@ahboaz]

In George's words: it shrinks! It shrinks!

[@dancinswords]

"Well it's obvious isn't it? Thermal expansion."

[@jamesoshea580]

You need a little electromagnetic disequilibrium buoyancy in there. Yes, I didn't use commas because that is the term in full.

[@billwilliamson1506]

@@Yehan-xt7cwBut then you would think any Flerf who was scientifically literate would then postulate a theory based on said observations and then, test said theory using different values. But no, not even Flatzoid himself tests his own claims, just blowing up screenshots from someone else doing the actual work to say “it just looks different”

[@donhill1825]

Yet again, a flat earther's point/argument can be attributed to the Dunning-Kruger effect. They learn a tiny amount of out-of-context information about photography & clunkily apply it to the false conclusion they've already made. Rinse & repeat with basically any technical field of study. It's incredible.

[@Aviator_Shades]

Dunning-Kruger effect combined with an absolutely collossal amount of confirmation bias

[@brrrayday]

Watch a sunrise or a sunset. Now watch a plane fly from the horizon to overhead. Anyone can disprove flat earth by making those two observations. The plane will slowly move up from the horizon, only to seemingly accelerate when directly overhead (in terms of degrees of sky covered), while both sun and moon cross the sky with a consistent rate. If I need to explain why this simple observation disproves flat earth, then it is doubtful the reader cares or is capable of understand what the truth is

[@chrizzlyx]

Let Flatzoid clean the oceans from plastic trash. He is amazing at grasping at straws

[@rhegafd]

dude, your dog loves the ever living crap out of you. It cracks me up every time hes like, "hey dad, stop doing what your doing and pet me"

[@d614gakadoug9]

If that hand is movin' it should be pettin' the dog, not just flappin' in breeze.

[@simond.455]

If I want to learn things about photography, I watch Dave McKeegan. 😄 If I want to learn nothing about anything at all, and hurt my brain in the process (I don't), I'd watch Flatzoid. 🤪

[@overwhelminglyaverage]

My favorite thing about these videos is how you actually go through and explain your thought process and their theories. You actually go and prove them wrong and not in a malicious way. But you back everything up, too, "trust the science/experiment/etc". Meanwhile, all the flat earthers have is "trust me, bro."

[@blankityblankblank2321]

I saw this posted in an earlier video but this is really a photography channel doubling as a flat earther debunking channel, and I love it.

[@stefanmilicevic5322]

I enjoy the comedy that Flatzoid performs. It's really entertaining to see someone portray the Dunning-Kruger effect. He is certainly a talented actor.

[@andrew12bravo21]

To be that much of a grifter, you have to have a talent in acting, as well as possessing ZERO conscious!

[@NG-VQ37VHR]

As a deep sky astrophotographer that regularly does imaging at 275mm, 390mm, 510mm, 600mm, 1422mm, 2032mm and up to several thousand mm when shooting planetary, the idea that longer focal lengths compress or distort far away objects, is hilarious.

[@lappansommer546]

Flerf response: what's the point of such lenses when the firmament is just a few hundred miles away?

[@georgemontgomery5786]

Dave: your analysis and debunk exceeded my expectations! Loved the video. Flatzoid will continue to make silly excuses.

[@RealCherrry]

Huge W. I can imagine the flat Earth community scrambling for a reasonable comeback to this (even though they can't).

[@Simeon_Harris]

so according to flatzoids reasoning, different lenses should produce different amounts of "drop", but by some incredible coincidence, the amount of drop observed in the blackpool photo perfectly matches what is predicted by the globe earth model. amazing!

[@pwilkinsonliverpool]

This is the same photo where they say the Tower is 37 miles away from Coastal Road... so the picture of the tower should not be possible... but it's 37 miles by road (via Preston). But only 12 miles away in a straight line... as per this photo

[@joshrock]

Dave, I appreciate your understanding of photography. I have noticed a lot of photographers that tend to dumb down these concepts for a beginner audience which is understandable but it often does lead to a misunderstanding of the physics of what's actually happening

[@CookTrain]

As a dumb not-even-beginner, he did a fantastic job of breaking down the subject matter in a way that I could easily understand.

[@Alessandro-B]

Gotta love how the flerfs use the same argument to reach 2 different conclusions. It's as if they make sh*t up there and then.

[@jasoncdebussy]

"A higher millimetre lens" - Flatzoid really has got the jargon down! 🤣

[@acefox1]

Great video Dave. As a photographer who loves dunking on flerfs I thoroughly enjoyed your work here Seeing that flerfs are still chasing their tails over the Blackpool Tower photo makes me smile immensely. 🤣

[@Flamer997]

I saw Blackpool tower in your thumbnail and clicked instantly, Blackpool is my home town.

[@leftpastsaturn67]

My last interaction with Failzoid went something like this: Me: Explain why there's no working map of the flat earth. Failzoid: 'I have an accurate map!' Me: Then show me. ...crickets... Me: So where is this map? (repeated this question half a dozen times) Failzoid: 'I don't subscribe to any map!' It will come as no surprise that he then blocked me. The poor clown thrives on the attention and in no way does he believe the sh*te he shovels.

[@andrewroberts6275]

The one thing that flat earthers are never going to escape is the fact that their poster boy Bob knodle is the only one that has done any meaningful experiment to try and prove the earth is flat but the results showed it to be a globe.

[@K_End]

Rip Bob

[@TooTsaka]

Flatzoid truly is a special specimen. His way of debunking the globe model is... inspecting pixels and highlighting minute differences. We are undeserving of this remarkable being.

[@markhellman-pn3hn]

the MASSIVE telescope in Hawaii can see planets ... but NOT the California coast !! ... my brain is melting !!

[@Lassisvulgaris]

Maybe the dome is closer than California...?

[@ReValveiT_01]

@@Lassisvulgaris Flatty's say the sun and moon are between 3,000 - 4,000 miles away and they are inside the dome. I can't see Ireland from the coast of England just 70 miles away no matter how much magnification I apply, yet I can easily see the moon 3,000 miles away with absolute clarity. See the blatant contradiction?

[@Lassisvulgaris]

@@ReValveiT_01 And that was my point....

[@teaguerchubak]

You've explained this so much better than my university photography class last semester.

[@Desertphile]

Did Flatzoid give any mechanism by which the background "drops" based on focal length? Just saying "Compression" is not a mechanism.

[@kyzercube]

One thing that photograph shows that very few people even recognize is that purple/pink hue in the background is not haze. It's literally the shadow of the Earth extended out into space. You can see it on very clear Sunsets in the East for about 10 minutes right as the Sun sets before its' contrast merges with twilight.

[@clivedavis6859]

It's called the belt of Venus.

[@kyzercube]

@@clivedavis6859 Yup. That's it. I honestly didn't know it had a name. I just knew what it was. The purple part under the pink is the shadow and the pink part is Rayleigh scattering at a very obtuse angle so it's pink/red making sunsets and sunrises that color.

[@RustyWalker]

I just looked up that video at Photography Online and there's an amazing idea that Flatbrain should have noticed in the first 20 seconds. Are you ready? It's really quite obvious. The photographer .. moves.

[@RustyWalker]

Of course, elevation isn't just about whether or not the photographer is kneeling, not to mention the photographer is centering his subject in the frame, not the horizon.

[@MysteicVoltronus]

I don't know why I was waiting for you to say "I am so glad he trusts the photography online panel of experts, because I have been a member of that panel for 8 years."

[@philbreadcrumbs8179]

Great content as always. I give it a day or two before we get a poor attempt at a debunk "debunk" from Failzoid, the guy who thinks he's qualified to educate others about gas pressure because he uses spray-paint for a living.

[@Erikheller99]

One day someone will tell flatzoid that spray-paint isn't supposed to be used as perfume.

[@c.augustin]

Is this his actual way of making a living? Maybe he does not wear masks out of principle (I don't know his stance while COVID-19, but at least when it comes to spray-painting) - it would explain a lot …

[@marvinhensbergen1515]

To all flat earthers, challenge... Render an image using 3D software that shows a ship disappearing bottom first on a flat plane. These simulations are not biased, the 3D software doesn't even know what you are simulating. And you can use any type of lens you want, and render in any resolution you want, so no technical limitations.

[@lappansommer546]

I think you roughly said: hey flat earthers, go learn about optics and apply that knowledge diligently rather than just pulling guesses from your arses. Might be a little delay on that...

[@powerpc6037]

They would still claim the software is manipulated in such a way to support a globe Earth instead of a flat Earth model and calculate the results differently because all programmers are also into the globe Earth mind-control thingy that has infected over 7 billion people. According to them, everyone who believes we live on a globe is brainwashed or indoctrinated, including programmers, pilots, astronauts and scientists.

[@NikiDaDude]

Excellent video, also your sleepy dog stole my heart

[@robertcatuara5118]

King of debunking? NO !! You're the king of the segue!! You get me every time.. Ok maybe you are the king of debunking too.

[@jcohasset23]

14:22 huh I didn't realize Canadian geese had been introduced to much of Western and Central Europe. That's neat. It's amazing to think that around the start of the 20th century they were considered extremely rare south of the Canadian border in the US due to unregulated hunting. It's been fun learning a lot more about photography from your videos.

[@WingNuts2010]

In the photos of the young lady, the difference in the height of the camera is very easy to see, given the change in the position of the wires supported by the pole.

[@cobalt4045]

Here's to Flatzoid moving the goal posts again and complaining those targets are too far away. The Blackpool Tower photo is definitely a problem for flerf. I already had one try to make the case that Ranty was not a true Flat Earther (or Scotsman, if you prefer).

[@aaronarmstrongaa]

This is a common slur thrown at Ranty. Believe me, he was a legit FE and as mean, rude and paranoid as the best of them. Huge grifter and always e-begging for something

[@cobalt4045]

@@aaronarmstrongaa I am aware of that. There's even an archive of random FE compilations on KZbin from 7 years ago that include Ranty with the rest of the big name flerfs of the time. There's a reason the No True Scotsman Fallacy is on the Apologetics Bingo Card, after all. If you are allowed to arbitrarily change what makes a true believer to omit any and all inconvenient truths that are brought up, then your claim is unfalsifyable as there can be no true believers that you won't try to Special Plead away.

[@padders1068]

Dave, thank you for educating, entertaining and for sharing your knowledge, and explaining it in a way so a non expert like me can understand. And as a bonus debunking at the same time! Great work Sir! 🙂😎🤓

[@MissionControl-dk]

Great challenge. I'm sure Flatzoid can solve it being the worlds most leading expert in everything.

[@RM_VFX]

He's apparently never used an optical zoom lens. Zooming makes literally no difference in the proportions or compostition of elements in the image with a locked off tripod, it's essentially a striaght up crop. When he says "compression," he's thinking of a dolly-zoom, or "Hitchcock zoom" where you move the camera forward or backward while zooming.

[@twistedsaltypretzel7727]

Was not expecting to LOL so hard, just earned a new subbie :P Clearly that 'evidence' 12-200mm image with the girl, grass and mountains is from a different bloody angle, clearly the power line in the background shows this - how on earth can people draw such insane conclusions???

[@hartmutholzgraefe]

I stopped asking after "Black Swan" ...

[@Green_Tea_Coffee]

Is anyone else as amused as I am at the thought of a guy using his cell phone as a camera, and who doesn't own a tripod, trying to tell a professional photographer how photography works?

[@RBGoudbeek]

They always say zooming in brings the sun/a ship/something over the horizon back up. Now they say zooming in actually drop things down? 🤔 How confused are they??!!? 👀

[@Forest_Fifer]

This is what happens to people who lie all the time, it's hard to remember all the lies to keep your story consistent

[@billbill6094]

So _that's_ why the picture on my driver's license looks uglier than normal. I love these vids because even ignoring the flat earth context, I always learn something about photography. If I didn't need to eat or pay rent I might've just picked up a camera as a hobby.

[@brag0001]

If you really want to do it, just do it. Any camera you already own, including your phone, will do. For the first 100 years of photography, literally ALL the cameras there were were worse than whatever you already own. Yet, amazing photographs were taken back then. Don't let your financial constraints hold you back. GAS, gear aquesition syndrome, is neither a necessary nor a helpful part of doing good photography. Training your eye, learning your tools and working within the constraints those tools have is ...

[@janus1958]

Flatzoid's claim that you needed to do a longer distance shot is the standard "moving the goal posts" tactic. If he even attempts to address the new images, he'll likely claim something like he did earlier with the other photographer, that Dave is lying about the how the photos were taken. I enjoyed this one, as back in the day I used to be more of a photography buff. I had a darkroom set up and everything. I started out using my parent's old Kodak folding camera. It was perfect starter camera for me as it had large negatives ~2''x 3", and thus you could make "contact prints" that were actual photo sized. Later I invested in an enlarger.

[@ProfezorSnayp]

The sheer fact we're having a discussion about the shape of Earth is very, very sad.

[@shaneeslick]

G'day Rusty & Dave, 🤔🐶📷🌍Rusty knows more about photography than any Flat Earther

[@ComfyCherry]

my very first thought was, "it's a slightly lower angle photo" not only are they likely not the exact photos taken from the clips of him crouching down but he's also on natural ground, ground that isn't a perfectly flat surface, even if he did crouch the exact same way and held the camera exactly the same way he could have actually been slightly lower due to the ground itself. I also want to know what it's supposedly being pushed down behind in the opinion of anyone who actually thinks that, seriously I can't possibly imagine what they could come up with.

[@theturtlemoves3014]

Dave, you have given the clues for a photography guru like Flazoid to work it out. In the event that he doesn't, I am sure he will call foul and blame it on changing lenses instead of using the P900/P1000, the flat earth camera of choice.

[@john_blues]

I was watching the 'debate' with FTE when flatzoid called out Dave. I knew Dave would come back with something excellent. I wasn't disappointed.

[@balthusdire]

I actually like the first step in his progress.... looking at the 12mm to the 200mm with the "vanishing" background and going "hmmm.... why is the background gone" is not a bad thing to do. The problem starts if you get an explanation and simply state "No, that's not it". The correct reaction would be "Oh... I learned something....". I'm curious if he a) just doesn't respond and ignores this video b) claims that you used CGI to fake the pictures c) is sure that you cheated by moving the camera back and forth d) admits that he was wrong and re-evaluates his standpoint Time will tell I guess.... As for me, I (again) learned a ton and thank you for the effort you put into your videos.

[@purecynicism3053]

e) does what he did before: try to do the pixel match and then go "nu nuh, not identical" ... while still ignoring that there is no visible "drop" in the background that would support his original claim about the mountains in the Blackpool Tower picture

[@purecynicism3053]

Looks like he first went for f) calling out Dave on an alleged strawman Damn, that guy is not as predictable as expected.

[@billwilliamson1506]

I say it’s “well you said you edited the photos! Clearly a gotcha moment if I have ever seen one!” Then proceed to never actually refute anything

[@MKxJUMP]

Dave, after we met yeserday night, I've been enjoying your videos! Absolutely hilarious this beef with flat earthers and I'm so here for it. Already watched a handful of your vids. Absolute bangers, mate!

[@DaveMcKeegan]

Hey mate, it was great meeting you, hopefully they go something similar again next year

[@gwryan1]

As we ALL know by now, Flat Earthers can't even agree on the layout and shape of the Earth, between themselves.

[@htownblack9184]

And you guys can't agree on how high one has to be to see curvature or what shape the earth actually is ....

[@jmacefire6581]

@@htownblack9184how high is your “local” sun?

[@tysondog843]

@@htownblack9184 You can see curve from any height, just watch the Sun set Below the horizon. There's the curve. We know what shape the Earth is, it's been photographed, videoed and measured many times in different ways. You can't provide 1 Single experiment that follows the Scientific Method, that can be repeated to get the same results, that demonstrates the Earth is flat, Not a globe You can't present an accurate 'Flat Earth' World map that’s Not a projection of the Globe with distance scale? You can't present a Working 'Flat Earth' model that matches reality, can be used to make predictions, without contradictions? Only Flerfs fail at this...

[@Tsudico]

@@htownblack9184 Any height shows curvature. Just depends on what curvature you're looking for. For example, an average adult will see the curvature about 2-3 miles away because that is where the horizon is. Flat earthers can't even explain how the horizon appears at that distance, or how the horizon changes in distance based on height. There are no flat earth horizon calculators, yet the horizon is something that anyone can see almost any day from plenty of locations.

[@htownblack9184]

@@Tsudico uhmmmm ok so you're wrong lol. Horizons are optical not physical sir ...but some of you say the earth is to big to see the curvature, which is it can we see it or not. We don't need a calculator to measure something that's not physical

[@tonydagostino6158]

It never occurs to flerfs that having to try over and over and over to flatsplain reality is a tell in itself. They certainly are very, very, very expert at grasping at straws

[@celticv]

Ikr grasp at straws lol because they just admit they are wrong.... . They dig themselves so much a hole 🕳 that they feel obliged to try to prove they are right, lol 😅

[@perevision]

Flatsplain 😂😂😂

[@tomb9484]

Loved the Mark Steele reference!

[@tonydagostino6158]

@@tomb9484Yeah it seemed like the perfect spot to slip that in

[@MsTerkup]

I just started the video and I can't believe what I'm hearing. They think the lens selectively compresses objects that are further away???

[@diarmuidkuhle8181]

I've no idea WHAT they believe about how cameras work by this point. Though if they said it was little imps trapped inside, that wouldn't surprise me any longer.

[@slackback313]

I continue to be impressed by your seamless transitions to your ads. Some of the best on KZbin! Oh, and your content is good, too!

[@realcygnus]

You forgot to mention how he FAILED(no doubt intentionally) several times at aligning his image comparisons during his little war with Shawn Hawkins, despite being an "experienced certified graphic artist/photoshop expert" & that "crop rate" is a very important aspect of photography. 🤪

[@DaveMcKeegan]

I haven't seen those videos yet, the ones I covered were ones people had linked to me and there is only so much flatzoid I can listen to 😂

[@realcygnus]

@@DaveMcKeegan I hear that. The fact that there are ppl dumb enough in the 1st place to believe he's a genius is what gets me.

[@clivedavis6859]

​@@DaveMcKeeganHe is very annoying to listen to with his laugh

[@draco2k729]

@@clivedavis6859or with his voice...

[@realcygnus]

@@draco2k729 or face 🤛

[@ukromarine426]

Hey Dave! I am a civili engineering student and I've had to work theodolites and in the field of geodesy it is absolutely necessary to factor in the curvature of the earth, since for example 4 90deg angle won't make a rectangle on a globe over a large distance. I haven't done the calculations myself, but it would interesting to see how much deviaton there would be if you were to walk for example 1km north then 1km east, 1km south and 1km west. It should be relatively easy if you start off a known reference point.

[@blankityblankblank2321]

FLs would say: you are lying, that the instruments are designed to lie to you, that your reference and education books are lying, that your instructors are lying, etc all to push an agenda. They would provide you with no evidence to their claims and use your absence of specific counter evidence to their claims as evidence for themselves. In reality I assume your profession wouldn't care all the much what the earth was shaped like as long as you could understand it.

[@transient_]

This has been shown/demonstated to flerfs (the sum of the angles of a triangle on a globe sum to more than 180 degrees) They deny the results by claiming the people doing the measurements are doing them wrong.

[@hobojoe9717]

I actually think Dave has made a video that talks about how engineers need to take curvature into account.

[@joedunn1109]

Walking due east, or due west is not as easy as people think. You have to walk in an arc. If you walk in a straight line, you will actually get closer to the equator.

[@Maou3]

Sadly, theodolite-based arguments don't work against flerfs because the basic trigonometry is too difficult for them.

[@captainlengthwidth6692]

Thank you for doing such a good job of explaining so simply what to us non photographers feels like pretty complex stuff but you have to wonder, if Flatzoid is so sure that different lenses make the world appear curved, why he doesn't go out to somewhere with a good clear view of distant hills and *take* *some* *photographs* *himself*? You know... "do his own research" instead of smugly nitpixeling other people's work. (That was a rhetorical question by the way because we already know the answer - he would have to leave his house and he's scared his mum might change the locks and not let him back in. )

[@AverageJoeGlobeR]

Excellent video. I wonder if any flat earther actually sat through it and watched it all. If they truly gave the entire vid a chance and listened to it, they'd be laughing at the ignorance of the flat earther content makers on KZbin

[@joeybabybaby5843]

DAVE McKEEGAN - Please note that for "pixel picker" arguments, a tripod-mounted "superzoom" camera will allow the exact same sensor to be at the exact same distance and angle while having different focal lengths. Excellent video!

[@ceejay0137]

It's easy to see the two photos were taken from different heights. There's a post in the background with power lines, and it's much lower relative to the girl in the telephoto shot, showing that the photographer was crouching down. He probably did that to brace the camera better because he was using a long lens. If the two were taken at the same height, e.g. on a tripod, the post would be at the same relative height in both and the mountain would be visible behind her.

[@MariaMartinez-researcher]

You know it and we know it. But the point of the flatearther guy is that it is the lens what makes the horizon go lower and give a ""false impression of Earth's curvature."" Yup.

[@ceejay0137]

@@MariaMartinez-researcher True, but that power pole is not very far behind the girl. The amount of curvature required to make it drop as far as it appears to would mean the Earth was only a few km in circumference.

[@Yehan-xt7cw]

Not to mention the height of the grass just behind her. In one the height of grass is at her waist, in the other at her knees.

[@teslar1]

I live near the coast about 100M above sea level with an uninterrupted view of the sea. I can see wind turbines on the horizon which disappear in stages as some are further out. On a clear day I can just seer the very tops of the blades as the sweep past their high point. Maybe I should rent out my spare bedroom as a retreat for curing flat earth afflicted people

[@TheHellis]

But with a P1000 you can zoom in to make them come back in to frame. You better not try it for real, just listen to the flatheads, that is how it works. They know

[@teslar1]

@@TheHellis you can’t zoom over the horizon. The blade tips barely show above the waves on the horizon

[@leftpastsaturn67]

@@teslar1 They were being sarcastic.

[@TheHellis]

@@teslar1 you haven't paid attention. All flat earthers say you can just zoom in to bring stuff back in to frame. And the whole irony of it all is that flatzoid now says the mountains go down when you zoom in. Down where??? If the earth is flat, where does the mountains go? So if someone zooms in on mount everest untill it's just a little hill then it will be easier for everyone else to climb?

[@tdcfc]

It's hilarious that he says "these are experts, and if you say they're wrong, you're insane", then the expert proceeds to debunk him and now the experts are wrong. My man basically said he knew better than the guy that was actually there doing the shoot. Danning-Krueger showed all its capabilities on this one. "I was not in the same position for every shot, sir" "Nuh uh, I say you were!" God, that's funny.

[@sendintheclowns7305]

Flerfs: Denying experts is insane. Also flerfs: Every astronomer, geologist, pilot, surveyor, and scientist in the world is wrong.

[@jonathanadams5903]

The 3 photos of the pole clearly show the horizon in the background at about the same height. We're not talking pixel perfection. We're talking drastic visual differences.

[@kenevans233]

Hi Dave. LOVE your channel! I've noticed something about those people who continue to argue flat earth concepts. [ To you Flat Earthers, this is not any kind of a slam. It's more about an understanding of the scientific process, which you are already engaging in.] You, the flat earth modelers, have a theory about how the world works and about what we are seeing and why. You perform experiments, you take evidence, you do calculations, and you come to conclusions. This is the first step in the scientific process. Then you present your evidence and your calculations to the community. This is the second step. The scientific community then reviews your work, and tears it apart. They do not do this maliciously, but in order to understand what you have done and why you have come to your conclusions. They are looking for errors in your assumptions, errors in your measurements or your calculations, and so on. They do this for a process called vetting. They have done this since the scientific process was created, over five hundred years ago. The process is there to make certain that they do not accept clearly wrong data or experiments into our science. It is part of the search for truth. The problem The problem is, you flat earthers don't understand this vetting process. You think that these people are just flatly denying your claims or squashing your ideas. That is not true at all. These educated and scientific people are merely finding fault in your scientific arguments, and bringing those points to light. They (we) are merely attempting to set you on the road to the same truths that we have all been revealing for centuries. If one of your scientific experiments were to reveal a new, unforeseen truth, the scientific community would actually praise your efforts. The problem is, most of the theories proposed by flat earthers are the same kind of questions asked by high school and college science students for over two hundred years. And the labs in science classes (mostly physics) prove how incorrect these questions and assumptions are. So, in other words, this is an area of understanding of science (physics) that we already know and have proven really well. We aren't trying to squash your good ideas. I would much rather you take your talent to critically think and reason, and spend your time in areas of physics that we haven't already proven false.

[@hueyiroquois3839]

Anybody who knows the difference between dolly and zoom already understands this. I guess flat-Earthers are even less film savvy than I am. (Edited because I type the way flat-Earthers do math.)

[@richardscratcher6075]

A great video! I teach photography and one of my lessons on focal length demonstrates that a cropped and blown up section from a 17mm lens image can match the view of a 200mm lens and show exactly the same apparent compression of distances. If our brains could crop and blow up the image from our retinas, we'd see the same effect.

[@tomb9484]

I guarantee he will complain that this time you have TOO MUCH distance between the foreground object and the background. That's pretty much all he has.

[@Guido_XL]

As an amateur astrophotographer, I have absorbed optical issues into my mental DNA. I know how to estimate and calculate the size of an image of a celestial object, depending on the telescope that I select for the purpose. There is also the option of taking images in secondary focus, instead of the usual primary focus, thereby adding more magnification, but that is not always a rewarding choice. We use Barlow lenses to increase magnification, if that is needed, like it is for planets, whereas large deep-sky objects do not require such measures. Anyway, hearing the rationalisations of an FlatEarther about photographs makes my head spin for a short while. Until I immediately put it to rest, into the cabinet of foolish thoughts that make absolutely no sense at all. It's all about perspective, if we consider the way in which objects appear in an image. Relatively, objects may appear differently, if the perspective changes, affected by a change in relative distances between the objects and the camera. Conjuring up some distortion that is supposed to explain a Flat Earth is indicative for the FlatEarthers, clutching at straws. Imaginary straws, that is.

[@comedicidiot]

I never knew a camera could affect the perspective of Earth's terrain, because that's definitely something that's within the realm of possibilty

[@ukamikazu]

At this point, after all these response videos over the years, Rusty, by sheer osmosis, knows more about photography than Flatzoid which makes Rusty the GOODEST BOY EVAR YESHEIS!xoxo

[@langton666]

Doesn't Flat heads "zooming in makes the background drop" argument totally contradict the flerf "zooming in to the seas horizon bringing things back up" ?

[@williamchamberlain2263]

Only if you think about it

[@briansomething5987]

Nobody ever claimed flerfs were consistent (except for being consistently wrong, of course). That's what happens when you just make stuff up as you go along because you have no working model.

[@davidkaminski615]

Didn't Galileo go through this with the Church when he had the gall to put two lenses on either ends of a tube and look up?

[@mglenadel]

I'm about halfway through watching the video (currently as I paused to write this it's ay 10:12) and a thought occurred to me (which I have no idea if you're going to address later on the video): If the photographer is below the girl (if the ground slopes down from where the girl is), two things would happen: One, the photographer's position on the farther away shot would be lower than on the closer shot; two, if the photographer is pointing the camera up at the girl, the line of sight wouldn't be horizontal, and therefore the background mountains would be shifted away by a greater angle on the longer shot. If the image is cropped from the original to cut away the sky and focus on the girl, the straight line from the image plane would not be at the center of the image, but rather higher up, and the new framing would make it seem impossible that the mountains would shift so much due to the focal length.

[@cypherdk85]

I've shown flat earthers photos I took myself zooming in on windmills, showing that they do not drop down more, they stay the same. I took them because of their old claim, that zooming in would make them come back over the horizon. I also did the same test with changing aperture because ages ago, one flat earther claimed that changing aperture would make stuff come back from over the horizon.