WHY NASA Photoshop photos

[@StealthBoyElite]

Of course all the photos from space missions 40+ years ago were photoshopped. They just had to photoshop Photoshop into existence 40 years before it existed first. Easy. I find anyone who claims "CGI" easy to ignore anyway. Even in the late 90s, CGI was basically Toy Story III.

[@jarikinnunen1718]

What happened when they turned films to digitals? In original Apollo book from seventies was picture of moon, which was manipulated. Ground have duplicated details.

[@rage9715]

@@jarikinnunen1718 Where they looking out of the module?

[@Grafixart]

Can you tell me what pictures is it ? Im sure its the one taken from the window of the module and you can see some ghosting on some edge ;) ​@@jarikinnunen1718

[@oregonwildboy]

Well that's precisely how confirmation bias works!

[@b_dirty7113]

That's what they tell you it is. Like they're going to tell you the truth lmao.

[@h.dejong2531]

There are two basic workflows for scanning images: 1. use the scanner program that came with the scanner. These used to be universally awful, and lacked basic features. You'd end up with a file that you would then have to open in an editing application to do anything useful. 2. control the scanner from within Photoshop. The files would come in directly into the editing environment, allowing you to skip a bunch of steps and avoid dealing with the awful scanner software.

[@nocelebrity6042]

Once that's all done, then there's a bunch of steps that can be recorded as an Action, and then a huge batch of photos can be automatically color adjusted, resized, compressed, named, and saved. It's likely that the NASA employees who "edited the photos in Photoshop" didn't do any touch-ups, retouching, or photo manipulation like copy, paste, clone stamp, layers, filters, etc. I've edited photos in Photoshop, and I've also manipulated photos in Photoshop. Those two workflows are vastly different.

[@JaapGinder]

The scanning of the original photo's Nasa did, was done with specialized equipment. Don't think any private person can even afford those devices. So I doubt they even used Photoshop to scan the original photo's, maybe later on they processed the RAW images with Photoshop. I've seen professional scanners to scan negative film and I was amazed by what the results where. JPEG is an end-user format, nothing proffesional about it.

[@rbspider]

I worked at a metropolitan newspaper and every image was color corrected using Photoshop to match press settings. What the photographers were not allowed to do was to stage shots.

[@speed_demon420]

Key wording

[@baileyherbert]

Speaking of satellites, a great way to disprove flat earth is with GPS. If you look at the data your device receives while GPS is active, it's just timestamps and coordinates from 4 different satellites - there's nothing at all about your own location in there. Then, the math to calculate your location only works if a) you're on a globe, b) the speed of light is accurate, and c) the reported positions of each satellite, including their altitudes, are accurate. If any of these are false then the result is easily thousands of miles off.

[@ghyslainabel]

To have accurate GPS data, you also need d) time dilatation due to different speeds, e) time dilatation due to different gravity.

[@mrandrat625]

You've ignored geo-stationary sataloons (satellite balloons) tho.. lol No really, that's most flerfs answer. That or "it's all ground based stations on cel. towers".

[@raypeery6317]

@@SpaceManWyo "continue to think they're smart" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN

[@raypeery6317]

@@SpaceManWyo that was in the 50's globehead. Are you assuming nothing has improved since? DERP! Wakey-wakey! You've been brainwashed since you were a little kid.

[@MessiahNonEst]

@@SpaceManWyo ground based radar invented during WW2 was accurate to 100 miles for planes and 30 miles for ships. This developed into Loran which can locate a 300mtr ship 3000 miles from land to within 60 metres pretty accurate. Pin piont accuracy is not possible due to a lack of radar towers in the oceans. The backbone, fundamental and essential, to gps is ground based radar. If 50s radar technology is, in your opinion, so inaccurate over a distance of 3000 mile just how accurately do you think ground based radar is at pinpointing the exact location in space of a 3mtr satellite at 13,000 miles distance without a string of radar signal towers in space . From horse and cart through Model T to the latest Tesla, light years apart technology wise but all useless without that ancient technology the wheel. Questioning wheather ground based radar can accurately locate a car size object 13,000 miles away is valid, dismissing said question with no knowledge of the subject is not. It's not that radar cannot do what gps does but that Gps cannot work without radar. Flat earthers claim that globe defenders don't know what they are talking about, please stop proving them correct else they'll think they are right.

[@leeroy265]

Only discovered you a day or 2 ago, have binged since! Amazing content, explained so well. Keep up the good work!!!

[@shastajazzy]

Same!

[@davidmbrownphotography]

Dave, as a fellow photographer I enjoy your video's. As someone whom has actually shot for NASA even more so. Keep up the great work! Look forward to seeing more in the future!

[@schm147]

What did you shoot for them out of curiosity?

[@davidmbrownphotography]

@@schm147 for whatever reason my original reply to this didn't post, sorry about that. Anyway, to answer your question I was a contributor on STS-129 in November 2009, I flew to Los Angeles to shoot the arrival of Endevour at the California Science Center in 2012. I don't know if NASA used any of those or not but the LA Times did. And I was a contributor for the 2017 eclipse from Hopkinsville, KY in 2017. NASA has staff photographers, sub contractors, and occasionally use a number of contributors like me. I shoot mostly motorsports now with some portraiture in the off season. It's steadier work and pays very well.

[@raypeery6317]

@@davidmbrownphotography yes NASA has a YUGE graphics budget... ;)

[@lXlDarKSuoLlXl]

@@raypeery6317 they got a universe worth of visual processing to do, so that's a given 😂

[@raypeery6317]

@@lXlDarKSuoLlXl yes of course. ALL that money but can't be arsed to get a legit video of our spinning globe tho, eh? Convenient, that.

[@evawettergren7492]

Aaah, finally. Someone who actually understands optics explains what the images are all about... I have often thought that those poor flat earthers just need a couple of workshops from a photographer and much would become clear even for them.

[@c.augustin]

Wouldn't change anything, as they *desperately* want them to be fake and never actually look into evidence, only into their fabricated evidence.

[@okcguitarbear410]

Hello, I see there are two replies to you and I'm guessing mine will be the third. Would you mind copying and pasting the two comments as a new comment for us to read? Thank you!

[@okcguitarbear410]

@expattaffy1 I see yours and mine as far as replies but it says there are 4 replies and this will probably make it say 5. Comments are being hidden.

[@okcguitarbear410]

Inverse Square Law. I've done the calculations and the Hasselblad camera they used along with the 22.6 f stop and 1/125th shutter speed with Low iso film would not generate the images we have of what the say is the moon on the surface. At 14 miles away from the moon there would be approximately 13,000,000 lumens. Calculate they lumens on the surface and it's insane. There are clues out there like this you have to do just a little bit of research and calculations and the story falls apart. I hope this helps someone. My channel most likely will be taken down. Thank you.

[@okcguitarbear410]

@expattaffy1 Oh, I wasn't aware. How do you do this? You can email me at the same name with no spaces at gmail if that's easier.

[@Sander_Hollo]

I tried to explain them that midle focuspoint never distorts(bends) image. Their answer was only that "it's bent","it's fish eye" bla bla. So i left this group. Nicely done mate.Keep it up.

[@DaveMcKeegan]

I showed someone a photo from the cockpit of a U2 spy plane which clearly showed curvature - they tried arguing it was a fisheye lens so I pointed out that the wing is in the corner of the frame and yet is straight ... So they carried on saying it was a fisheye lens but tried claiming the wing was actually in the middle and it was cropped 🤣

[@DaveMcKeegan]

@expattaffy1 Then why can you or any other skeptic, provide the simple evidence that if the photos were faked on the moon, show us the lighting setup that produces those looks - baring in mind the photos were shown to the world 20 years before Photoshop ever existed 🤔

[@DaveMcKeegan]

@expattaffy1 I think you can't wrap your head around the concept of training ... Or most other things So let's say hypothetically that they did take the photos in the desert, how did they light it? 🤔🤔🤔

[@DaveMcKeegan]

@expattaffy1 That's a rather brain-dead way of saying that you can't work out how it would be lit 🤣

[@DaveMcKeegan]

@expattaffy1 Someone saw the landings being faked but said nothing until their deathbed, they gave the video to someone else who didn't bother showing it to anyone or making copies ... Then conveniently lost the video and then waited until near their own death bed to release their claim of seeing someone else make a claim about it ... Yeah that's about your level of 'evidence' 🤣

[@PahaLukki]

Best defense and explanation for a lot of the space photographs. This and the moon light fall off video clearly show that you have a knack for explaining technical things in a way, which answers the obvious counter-arguments, and doesn't leave too much pointless ambiguity in the discussion. Thanks.

[@okcguitarbear410]

Inverse Square Law. I've done the calculations and the Hasselblad camera they used along with the 22.6 f stop and 1/125th shutter speed with low iso film would not generate the images we have of what they say is the moon on the surface. At 14 miles away from the moon there would be approximately 13,000,000 lumens. Calculate the lumens on the surface and it's insane. There are clues out there like this. You have to do just a little bit of research and the calculations and story fall apart. I hope this helps someone. My channel most likely will be taken down. Thank you.

[@raypeery6317]

@@rozzgrey801 I hope you develop piles. Thanks.

[@LineOfThy]

@@okcguitarbear410 The government doesn't give a sh*t about you, stop being a princess

[@okcguitarbear410]

​@@rozzgrey801Thanks for the reply! I hope you have a great day!

[@okcguitarbear410]

@@raypeery6317 Thanks for you reply. I hope you have a fantastic day!

[@RM_VFX]

Every photo on your phone has some level of filtration done to it, from color vibrance to denoising. Try turning on RAW image mode and see how grainy and flat the photos are. This is basically what NASA is doing to its images, in addition to tiling multiple images into one wider panorama, and remapping colors to make them more presentable. They are not painting out space rats or buildings, or fabricating planets.

[@brendamartin3444]

The earth completing one “spin” in a 24 hour period is exactly what I use to refute claims that the earth spins “too fast” and that everything should be “flinging off” I ask them to physically complete one “spin” themselves, but that they have to take 24 hours to do it, you can literally see the aha moment take place when asked face to face, while in chat rooms the conversation just abruptly comes to end 😂😂😂

[@Globeisahoaxx]

I also refute globe claims with asking to provide a livestream of Australia at the bottom of the ball. So far no one was able to.

[@Top-Code]

@@Globeisahoaxx because there is no bottom, because you don’t know what bottom means. You are welcome

[@Top-Code]

@@Globeisahoaxx but since you just keep asking, the himawari 8 satellite provides an image with Australia displayed on the lower part of the image.

[@mikefochtman7164]

I tell folks to stare at the hour hand of an old-fashioned clock for half an hour. And remind them that it is moving twice as fast as the earth. ;)

[@brendamartin3444]

@@Globeisahoaxx The live streams that have been provided have all be rejected as “fake”… How many proofs that have been requested and supplied need to be rejected as “fake” before it just becomes ridicules?

[@charlie2640]

I’ve worked around professional observatories and been involved in the design of several very large telescopes since the mid 1980s. The current images of objects in space in color are relatively modern. Astronomers have long taken black and white images with color filters, blue, red, etc to determine the color of stars. They did not bother with actual color images. I believe that it was William Miller that first published color images of objects in the sky in 1959. These were widely circulated and can be seen in the backgrounds of many movies. Science has long had a problem understanding the importance of good PR. These color images could hav been produced long before. I believe that even NASA was initially caught off guard at the level of public interest in the Hubble images.

[@KnorKater]

As a side note to the "the details show it's been edited with Photoshop" - that entry from the file's metadata can easily edited out/changed without great effort. If anything the fact that NASA left them in is evidence that they're not trying to cover anything up. If that was their goal, they'd simple change stuff like that.

[@LapsedSkeptic]

A textbook example of how expertise can make an already settled topic interesting in the way good documentaries are re-watchable…our memories won’t retain it all so when the presentation is top notch the result is perfect entertainment, imo.

[@albinsannholmforsberg2515]

I’m glad you’re channel has been growing a lot lately. But please don’t stop with camera and photography related content. Greetings /Albin

[@c.augustin]

The funny thing is that it *is* photography related content he's doing here. I watch other channels that are more or less devoted to debunking flat earth nonsense, but Dave's content is much more fun, as it shows what photography means when it comes to space. (I followed him some time ago and unsubscribed due to boredom, but I'm now subscribed again because he shows some new aspects of photography and how it can be applied in "other fields".)

[@excavatorpresschannel2519]

@@c.augustin I agree but I quite enjoy the gear and technique oriented videos. I've been subscribed for about 3-4 years and I never find his content booring :)

[@c.augustin]

@@excavatorpresschannel2519 He is very good at explaining, whatever topic he's after. And he has a certain kind of humor, in his case called humour … 😁

[@JSSTyger]

I can explain country size proportions changing. I took a photo of a highly decorative mug at close range and fit it to the frame veritically. Then I backed up to the back of the room and zoomed in and again fit it to the frame vertically. The mug sizes in the different images appeared the same but I could see more edge detail in the one that was taken from a distance. With a curved surface such as a mug or a sphere, you see more of the edges with distance.

[@tonyclif1]

@JSSTyger, I did exactly the same thing with a globe of the earth, just like David did. Very telling, but flerfs will still dispute it - and won’t try it themselves for fear of being proved wrong.

[@JSSTyger]

@@tonyclif1 Its because their leaders (ie Dubay) do nothing but say "nuh uh" and say "theres no way it can be real" without doing a lick of research. And thats enough to get people to start teetering toward FE. Its built on a foundation of BS.

[@ShizukuSeiji]

@@tonyclif1 Good point. Flat Earthers do not want to *know* anything, what they do want is to *not know* anything.

[@sudo4598]

@@artemdown6609 anti-science is going to be the downfall of humanity.

[@tonyclif1]

@@artemdown6609 you make it sound like caring for the truth is a bad thing! I don’t like seeing people sucked in by grifters - it’s hilarious how many flerfs are obviously scamming their followers, for money, attention and a feeling of self importance.

[@tharpstead]

Dave, this is just a brilliant defense of reality. Thank you 🙂

[@DaveMcKeegan]

Thank you sir 😊

[@kareldegreef3945]

nope , not at all 🤣🤣🤣 btw: "Reality" doesn't need to be defended => because Reality just is what it is (no LIES) 😉 Only Lies need to be defended 😁😁😁

[@Jupiter-ux5ew]

@@kareldegreef3945 reality sorta does need to be defended when there are plenty of people screaming "FAKE!!" at it, huh?

[@user-J.M.A.I]

@@kareldegreef3945 never believe comments that use too many emojis

[@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394]

Simple explanations usually are.

[@Jason-un9ps]

12:40 Soooo they believe that “someone” has the ability to hide the fact that the earth is actually flat, but that they’d also be so careless as to overlook something like editing a photo? Come on now 🙄 The cognitive dissonance is REAL with these people

[@ReValveiT_01]

It's hilarious when flerfs ask to see photo's of "upside down" objects such as planes and ships from orbit. They simply cannot grasp that there is no "upside down" on the globe.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

And they couldn't even tell if a photo was taken in that orientation or just presented to them as upside down... Whenever a Flerf made the "Is it CGI" test they failed abysmally, scoring in all examples i know of lower than pure chance.

[@ReValveiT_01]

@@Ugly_German_Truths Indeed. Before YT ruined all the fun by banning links, I used to flip photos of boats and planes and link them to the flerfs.

[@Globeisahoaxx]

Why not? If Australia is at the bottom of the ball, then objects are upside down. You have problems understanding simple logic?

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

@@Globeisahoaxx Because DOWN is where we feel the pull of gravity coming from and that direction CHANGES when you move around the globe. UP for Australia is towards their sky. ALL directions depend on your own frame of reference, you cannot just declare any direction as universal.

[@Top-Code]

@@Globeisahoaxx there is no bottom. You have been told this hundreds of times

[@coeal2680]

5 min in basically, flerfs are the same as music "purists" that hate vocal layering. vocal layering is when a singer pre-records a line, so they can sign a different line at the same time. layering the two lines over each other. allowing one singer to sound like there are two. a LOT of songs do this, and there is a small population of music loving individuals that think its "cheating" or "fake"

[@charlehpock]

Vocal comping too - sometimes a single line in a modern song is about 20-30 takes stitched together, the singer takes all the takes that they like and builds their "best version", then they learn to sing the song like this for live performances. Doesn't mean the earth is flat :)

[@doncsicso81]

Flerfs: there are no satellites with live view of Earth. Let’s pretend next week a space agency launched one that could do it -> flerfs would be like: CGI…. 😅 you just cannot win against a flerf….

[@waitwhat7724]

They just want attention

[@anms_brk]

The sad truth of the matter is that it is the same mental disease people who follow a cult's ideology suffer from. They have no sense of personal agency, and in order to not wallow in existential grief at their lack of control over their life or place in society, they grasp at anything that lets them feel special, or part of a group that "knows the _real_ truth".

[@rodrigolefever2426]

The iss has a live view of earth so there is atleast 1satelite with live views of earth

[@mduncan5654]

You mean to tell me you cant see the image is cgi?!?

[@dominiclester3232]

Excellent, as usual, thanks!! Your dog is so patient 👏👏

[@c.augustin]

At 9:45 - you were too fast with the rotation, 15° per hour is much slower. I like to compare it to the rotation of a clock's hour hand - which is already 2 times faster than Earth! Edit: I just took a quick look at "March to the Moon" - no wonder those images had to be "photoshoped", many of them look just awful! But perhaps they are scanned in linear mode to retain as much data as possible (they were meant for scientific research, not as pretty vacation snapshots), and would therefor need some grading to be applied to look "natural".

[@skysurfer5cva]

Yep. The Flat Earth crowd trumpets "1000 mph" but conveniently ignores that it's 1 rev/day, or 0.00069 rpm. Flat Earthers are the cockroaches of the Internet.

[@parickyates]

Thanks for that. That’s a good way to explain rotation, since flat earthers try to make the rotation concept seem like the earth is spinning wildly fast.

[@c.augustin]

@@parickyates It's the difference between angular velocity and linear velocity. The linear velocity at the equator of 900 nautical miles per hour (easy to get this number, as 1° longitude at the equator is around 60 nmi) sounds unbelievably fast, and even 15° per hour sounds fast - but 15 arcminutes per minute or measly 15 arcseconds per second (0.0042° per second) puts this into perspective. And it shows why fractions of degrees are still measured in minutes and seconds (at least in navigation) … 😉

[@yeettiti3621]

lol, ur being too literal...we all understand what he was trying to convey

[@c.augustin]

@@yeettiti3621 Yes, I know. I still like the hour hand comparison as an analogue motion that is even coupled to Earth's rotation.

[@JonasColorado]

As a once great(and still great) Albert Einstein said: “Arguing with a fool is like trying to teach a fish how to climb a tree.”

[@maleprincess62]

I think you're mixing two quotes here lol

[@DJRonnieG]

As an astrophotography using a filter wheel, I don't necessarily use photoshop but from data gathering to instragram, there is a software workflow.

[@Top-Code]

Ahhh! It’s CGI!!! -flerfs But yeah, even just the RAW files from digital cameras are made with software Even film images are alterations from reality, the grain is not true to the light hitting the film. Even the images made by your eyes are processed, often this is called seeing.

[@0LoneTech]

That workflow likely involves integration tools like DeepSkyStacker, Munipack or SharpCap. Fascinating stuff, really. Some processing can benefit from knowing the sensor filter properties, like ALE (the Anti-Lamenessing Engine), which can do superresolution stacking, possibly helpful if you do astrophoto dithering. Panorama stitching requires compensating for lens distortions, see e.g. Hugin/libpano or Panorama Tools, and that's also a good resource for understanding image projections.

[@sthurston2]

Every photo taken by a P900 or P1000, the camera of choice for a flat Earther, is CGI. Those cameras use a digital sensor whose bit stream is processed into a colour image by a built in computer and then processed further into a compressed JPEG image. So ALL flat Earth P900 & P1000 images are Computer Generated Images, aka CGI. Yet all flat Earthers are absolutely ecstatic to use such images to "prove" flat Earth. The flat Earther's own expectations are their measure of reality or fake. If it matches what they expect it must be real, but if it doesn't match, why then it must be FAKE! One newbie flattie made me laugh when he claimed Space photos all showing a black background meant they must be fake as they only ever showed night time photos. He couldn't conceive of a sky being black in the daytime. On certain very dry hot completely clear days with no clouds, I have laid back and stared straight up into a strangely dark yet still intensely sky blue sky. The sky shades from a blue white at the horizon up to an intensely blue black zenith in the right conditions. Using a wide angle lens to capture that range of blue shades gave me some beautiful shots.

[@c.augustin]

Well, but this is not what "computer generated" means, as the image itself is not generated, but only processed by a computer, so rather CPI. It's called "computational imaging" these days.

[@Oswlek]

Great channel. Clear, precise and easy to understand. Thanks for your efforts to make us all a little more informed. 🙂

[@joaohneuhaus]

I had no idea about that site where you can get even the raw files. Learning something new everyday.

[@solidsnx]

Oh man, thank you for this video! I'm so glad to see the original images and that they don't have that apparent look of trickery. I really appreciate your channel and your work!

[@jamesgibson1220]

I hope they pick you up to do the narration for a space documentary. Opening monologue gave me carl sagan vibes. Would watch. 10/10.

[@FlappySock]

This is my biggest annoyance with flat earthers, Photoshopped does not mean fake! Flat earthers could actually learn a lot about photography if they put those P1000 to actual use :D

[@Corion2121]

Flat earthers learn? Ha!! You’re hilarious! 🫢🤣😂

[@lockheedx33]

@@Corion2121😂😂😂

[@gottagowork]

Today all images we view are "Photoshopped". UV glass on the lens. Lens hood. Lens artifacts/flares. Countering the Bayer filter. Applying basic contrast curve. Applying high pass filter. White balancing. Initial sharpening. Refined contrast curve/tone mapping/exposure. Color balancing. Size reduction and cropping. Sharpening for final media. Compression if desired. Many/most of which are done by the glass and camera itself if you ever view the "final result", as the RAW file is usually quite bland and uninteresting. Hell, even Ansel Adams "Photoshopped" his images, using different developing techniques in the dark room.

[@gottagowork]

​@expattaffy1 Didn't read it all as I assume it's nonsense, but note that my first word was *today* and how I put "Photoshopped" in quotes. Doesn't mean manipulated and falsified, but the development process of a photo. Something we all do even before the light reaches the sensor (UV, Grad, ND, or Polarization filters typically). If you watch a .jpg coming off the camera, it has already gone through heaps of builtin camera processing (response curves, bayer filtering, high pass filter, sharpening, white balance - you name it). Or you can process the RAW file in Photoshop/Lightroom/Darktable (Linux opensource) and apply all the automatic processes manually for maximum photo development control. But of course, all normal people already know this. Why play so dumb?

[@gottagowork]

@expattaffy1 Good luck replicating in life.

[@kevinmould6979]

@expattaffy1 Still haven't found the Caps Lock key then?

[@nanyubusnis9397]

9:46 2 Answers: Yes I am, and that looked significantly faster than once every 24 hours. Which just goes to show how excruciatingly boring it would be, and what a waste of resources to post this essentially just so flat earthers can dismiss it as fake anyway.

[@ishathakor]

also it's kind of funny because they DO live stream. they live stream from the iss either constantly or very frequently. sometimes i just open up the iss livestream and watch it for a little bit. it shows multiple views from multiple different cameras, though the turn of the earth is not really something you can discern in my opinion because the iss orbits quite fast at 16 times a day so any rotation of the earth is something you don't really notice i think as the iss whizzes by

[@JohnM3665570]

I love how thorough you explain the concepts and debunk the flat earthers' and Moon landing deniers' cherry picked claims.

[@JohnM3665570]

@expattaffy1 , None of your questions are proof the Apollo photos of Earth and the Moon are fake.

[@JohnM3665570]

@expattaffy1 , Did you bother to watch this video? The original raw Apollo photos are large format. Using Photoshop to compress them for use on the web enables websites to use smaller photos for quicker downloads of web pages. Putting photos in Photoshop doesn't mean they are fake or being manipulated.

[@JamieS1992]

so all in all flat earthers just dont know how photoshop works or photos in general

[@EBDavis111]

In general, flat earthers don't know how anything works.

[@vloggingwithsam4811]

@@EBDavis111 yes, this is true. I spoke to one who said all history was faked by the government to make certain events look like the earth was round. One these events that were “faked” was Pearl Harbor. There are literally living witnesses lol

[@MarkMichalowski]

@@vloggingwithsam4811 Ah, but those living witnesses are probably CGI. Or animatronics. Or lizard people.

[@critthought2866]

@@MarkMichalowski You forgot to add in freemason. That seems to be a flerf's favorite bogeyman organization.

[@markthomas6045]

The phrase that comes to mind is..."You're preaching to the choir...". But thank you for doing the homework Dave. You'll never convince someone who has made up their mind and won't listen to reason or logic but for the majority of us you've done an outstanding job in these recent videos, Thanks!

[@Soundbrigade]

You are so true. Flatties who has come back to reality states that they never looked at videos explaining why they were wrong and those few who does are just trolling (had a pointless “discussion” with one who just repeated one line all the time the other day. On the other hand for us who live in a real world, it’s fantastic to have more knowledge about how things work so we don’t fall into rabbit holes ourselves and in worst case have some ammo to fend off flers when they approach us.

[@AanGozall]

I subbed for photography stuff, but stick to your channel because of these beautifully presented contents. Cheers from Indonesia

[@ed9121]

When you stop to think about it, any photo taken with a digital sensor, such as a camera or phone is computer generated!

[@epichouse534]

Another fantastic video that sticks to concisely made arguments without the need for insults and mockery. Informative, educational and on target. It shows once again that the Flat Earth guru's are manipulating data themselves and/or inadvertently passing around flawed information as "proofs" in order to either A) Keep their belief system going, or B) To continue to grift people out of their money. Neither one is good. You also sound like another fellow Lancastrian, Dave, which is always an extra bonus if it is the case. Cheers.

[@okcguitarbear410]

Inverse Square Law. I've done the calculations and the Hasselblad camera they used along with the 22.6 f stop and 1/125th shutter speed with Low iso film would not generate the images we have of what the say is the moon on the surface. At 14 miles away from the moon there would be approximately 13,000,000 lumens. Calculate they lumens on the surface and it's insane. There are clues out there like this you have to do just a little bit of research and calculations and the story falls apart. I hope this helps someone. My channel most likely will be taken down. Thank you.

[@Tsudico]

@@okcguitarbear410 Stand across the room from a mirror, then move so your nose touches it...has your image gotten brighter at all? If not...why do you think the moon that is also reflecting light, would be different?

[@kevinmould6979]

@@Tsudico He's copy/pasting, he isn't interested in debate.

[@Tsudico]

@@kevinmould6979 True, often my comments are more for people who may be less informed and start questioning because of someone who makes a bad argument with incorrect information. For this reason I think it is helpful to have a rebuttal visible.

[@DannyGmusicc]

I’ve found you the answer to all my questions well done 👍🏾

[@Polydueces]

You're better at handling the flat earthers than others like Sci Man Dan. As entertaining as he is to watch, there's a lot of antagonizing going on that doesn't happen here. It's facts here that are delivered in an easy to understand way that also seem to go as far out of their way as possible to favor flat earth, while still disproving it. It's great!

[@phildavenport4150]

The real value of Dave's vids is to be found in the appreciation by people who learn from his information. Sadly, that doesn't include dumbass flattards and boofhead Moon landing deniers, whose "Nuh-uh" level of debate is supported by their incessant felt need to repeat their mantras of ignorance and abuse.

[@lilgto64]

Sci Man Dan does get a bit more animated. Or maybe agitated is more accurate. I like em both.

[@LUSCIOUSDUNCAN]

i hate resorting to "common sense" as an argument because it's rather flimsy on its own, but flat earth is something that can be disregarded with relative ease by merely thinking about the unfathomably massive undertaking that would be necessary to not only hide the evidence that the earth is flat, but also prop up an equally massive lie that the earth is spherical AND (!) make that massive LIE somehow be scientifically verifiable in every conceivable context.

[@OptimusPhillip]

It's not exactly the same, but when I was a kid and my parents switched their TV provider to Dish Network, I distinctly remember being quite enthralled with the Dish Earth channel. Basically, Dish strapped a camera to one of their satellites, and used that to broadcast a live feed of the Earth from a geostationary point of view. Apparently they ended that broadcast some years ago due to technical issues, but I still remember it quite fondly.

[@marcbeebe]

Unfortunately you're talking about people who don't even understand the science that was available hundreds of years ago when we first determined the Earth was a sphere, so what hope is there they'll comprehend digital photography? Frankly anyone can do the experiments at home and see the proof of it, but not without first understanding what they're doing. (Say, maybe NASA should use GIMP; then people could proclaimed "that image is GIMPED!" *LOL*)

[@PelletJamie]

"Anyone can do the experiments at home and see the proof of it" Right....and what experiments would those be?

[@Delaneyblack93]

Who is we? And where have I seen one object naturally orbit another object due to gravity? There’s obviously things the government doesn’t know that it’s not ready to admit because they are in the lie too deep

[@simonoliver5327]

Yo you sheep, cmon tell us what experiments you can do at home??

[@Ratciclefan]

As someone who makes digital art, seeing people "say something was processed through photoshop so it isn't real" hits personally

[@vladtepish1790]

It's as real as a woman's face covered in make up. That's her face, but she doesn't really look like that.

[@Ratciclefan]

@@vladtepish1790 I have no idea what point you are trying to make

[@vladtepish1790]

@@Ratciclefan Well do you know why that is?

[@lemagicbaguette1917]

@@RatciclefanI think their point is how the woman is entirely real even if her face has been apparently altered, pointing at how ridiculous it is that an image passing through a program with tweaks must have be faked.

[@Foebane72]

Dave McKeegan, your clear and concise explanations here completely DESTROY the whole Flat Earth movement! Keep it up!

[@neonh161]

No it doesn't, all what Dave McKeegan is doing is defending and justifying the globe; everything that he's presenting in this video flat earthers already knows.. Imagine a flat earther taking a string of high altitude pictures of earth, then applying them to a horizontal surface, I'm sure you would claim that the resulting flat looking earth picture of earth was fake..

[@s009_]

13:25 anyone know the number and mission for this photo, i wanna download it but id have to go through THOUSANDS of photos

[@mikep9604]

It's from the Apollo 17 mission. Photo: AS17-134-20384

[@Music_Never_Stops]

It's stupid that they complain that NASA Photoshops photo's, but do not complain about other world famous photographers doing the same. Lots of (even award winning) photographers Photoshop their pic's, using filters and so on. Also they are seeing those NASA pic's as "evidence". Well...they are not. They are just pictures, mostly for PR reasons. (Look what we have done, etc.) So even if the pic's are real (which they are, but ok) it's not a shame to use Photoshop to make them look a bit better. Who cares. Even my ex removed her acne on her FB photo's. Everybody does it.

[@ChockHolocaust]

The funniest thing conspiritards say concerning this kind of thing is: 'space photos are not real, they're composites done in Photoshop'. What the fuck do they think they are composites of?

[@Globeisahoaxx]

Of many fake pictures

[@mrandrat625]

The majority of the big flerf channels know about all of this but ignore it. #GottaLie2Flerf

[@chriskeentechnician]

Another fascinating video….thank you! 7:02 I found really interesting with the side by side comparison of the two images taken at two different distances from the globe 👌

[@linhero797]

I remember when I was working on a Doom background I used a picture the Mars Rover took of a Mountain Range. This massive Panorama. But the thing was the Panorama was made up of seceral pictures sewn together so that it is a consistent straight image. I remember seeing that and thinking it was a bit odd. And in all of a minute I realized why the picture was shaped like that. That's how it has to be done for Panorams of such massive things. You just turn the camera a few degrees and take several pictures and stitch them together. Otherwise the inage isnt a long straight inage but an akward circled one. Actually reminds me of those shitty Panorama options phones had some time ago and when I messed with them in my highschool filmography class.

[@anms_brk]

This right here? _This is what critical thinking looks like_ , conspiracists.

[@linhero797]

@@anms_brk The problem isn't they lack critical thinking skills. It's that they're just dishonest about the evidence and the conclusions one would make off of it.

[@lilgto64]

At a conference we had a dude from NASA talk about the very first pictures on Mars taken by Curiosity. They all cheered as the first image came up on screen and then realized they had no idea whatsoever if they were looking at a tiny ridge very close to the rover or a massive ridge very far away.

[@Saimeren]

14:18 I would love to hear the science behind how you might have three different shadows pointing in three different directions? The astronaut's shadow is pointing "north", the lander is pointing "north west" and the rock to the right of center frame is pointing "west". How do you get three different shadow angles from three items this close together with a single light source?

[@Top-Code]

They are pointing in the same direction tho?

[@chriskehrer3717]

Well, from my casual observation, that that image, is a panoramic image, and, from my own knowledge of panoramas, is that you have differing viewpoints, as the camera pans. That, and that the light source is any number of miles behind the camera, would make relatively parallel shadows. With a camera taking those images at differing angles, that would then make anything on the right side of the image, with the light being behind, appear to travel left, and objects on the left, to cast shadows to the right. Similarly, the same effect could be found by laying down on a side walk, and seeing that the edges of the sidewalk will perceive to close up to a point, provided obstructions dont block your view. The right edge will seem to travel somewhat left and the left side will drift to the right to a vanishing point. This is something that is taught in art, esp for anyone that wants to draw anything that has horizontal edges, such as a city-scape. They also could chose to use a second horizontal vanishing point, as well as a third to very dramatic effect. As for any oddities with those shadows, some other explanations could be how the land lies, other camera angles and potentially large or extremely reflective objects off or even on screen.

[@drosophilamelanogaster4262]

You are free to explain how each object casts only one shadow is there are multiple light sources

[@Saimeren]

@@drosophilamelanogaster4262 I didn't say there were multiple light sources. Where did you get that? I simply asked for the explanation on how you would get 3 different directions from a single point of light with the subjects being so close together. And an answer was given that I'm good with. I asked because you know; I'm a dumb fuck that didn't know how science works. Idiots seeking idiot questions so THEY CAN LEARN doesn't mean they're trying to debunk anything. Don't put words in my mouth.

[@drosophilamelanogaster4262]

@@Saimeren My bad then, accept my sincere apology. I misinterpreted you because this is the common argument of moon landing deniers who claim it was done in a studio.

[@nektariosorfanoudakis2270]

I can't believe people need to be reminded that photoshop, and PCs for that matter in general, didn't exist during the Apollo missions, and the conversion of the images to digital form must be very recent.

[@crazypatrickteacher]

Did anyone else actually really like the look of it the moment the video went monochromatic?

[@0LoneTech]

At 4:10? Yes, it's a neat look, but that also uses uneven blends of the available channels, typically reducing the influence of red. I was more distracted by the following quadrants using partial tinting rather than channel separation.

[@crazypatrickteacher]

@@0LoneTech it'd look great on an album cover though ;)

[@washoywa]

What a guy, no insults just facts.

[@lockheedx33]

A guy with facts but no insults debunking people with insults but no facts

[@jacobh9241]

Image stitching can be VERY precise. I've worked with industrial processes which rely on image stitching to attain nanometer-level accuracy on decimeter-scale objects. None of the images get run through Adobe anything, but they are stitched together to create a high-accuracy mosaic. But all of the sub-images have to be REAL and ACCURATE to achieve these results--they can't be fabricated. Stitching is legit.

[@talesfromtheknicks7811]

You’re a clown

[@tamfang]

You could have mentioned the early color photography of Prokudin-Gorski, which were done in three filtered shots; some of them show amusing motion ghosts.

[@randomescu]

fish_eye lenses and portrait mode photos should be banned. on topic: im a sceptic too; im sceptic about the existence of flath earthers. they are simply trolls.

[@lomarvgc1580]

these videos are so interesting and it still involves photography so I'm gud

[@draugnaustaunikunhymnphoo6978]

9:48 He asks if we are bored, but he's spinning it way too fast. For real, he is.

[@coriscotupi]

Yep. 0.0007 rpm, or seven tenths of one thousandth of one rpm, is the actual rotational speed.

[@yeettiti3621]

ur being too literal...we all know what he was trying to convey

[@raypeery6317]

1000mph at the equator. Zero at the "poles". And you buy that nonsense.

[@coriscotupi]

@@raypeery6317 At any given angular rotation speed, the tangencial velocity is proportional to the radial distance from the center. Hence, it's zero at dead center. Anyone who did not drop out of school should know this.

[@raypeery6317]

@@coriscotupi no shit Sherlock, that's my point. I guess like all the other globe cultists smooth brains I need to type slower for you? You don't see the problem there? Maybe your "schooling" was just brainwashing, eh?

[@blendpinexus1416]

i still stand by the fact that it was way easier to actually go to the moon than it was to fake going to the moon.

[@Heatmn68]

Not for people that claim to see "OBVIOUS CGI" in real footage. I mean, just go to the theater and look what CGI are in 2024.... it's still nowhere near the footage of the ISS and/or moon landing

[@FUNNYMANERICWHITE]

Yeah. But how would you know either way

[@mistertagnan]

@@FUNNYMANERICWHITE by having an understanding of cameras and VFX, as well as the limitations of VFX in the 1960’s

[@Aurora666_yt]

Absolutely! 💯

[@FernandoGonzalez-hq9ei]

How many movies of space are there ? Way more than the amount of times we've been to the moon... They didn't even have gps in 1969 and computers were the size of a room and couldn't do almost anything. They say they pretty much used a star map and looked at the sky to navigate there. Just take a step back and look at the whole thing objectively. It's ridiculous... They supposedly went there in 1969 why have I never seen a modern version of tape of us on the moon. U would think their would be high def 4k video of them playing pingpong up there

[@The_otschi]

As somone who worked in this field (maynly building satelites or parts for them) I can tell you that every step in computing you can avoid up there will be done back on earth The most obvious reason is weight saving but there are other more important factors Computer parts need to be extremly shielded against radiation wich makes cooling very hard while cooling itself is already a very big problem In vacum the only way to get rid of heat is do to heat radiation wich is very inefficient itself, while every other object that radiates heat near your satelite also heats your sattelite so avoidung complex computational components makes things easyer a lot of satelites out there have computational powers compareable to devices ranging from a calculator to an simple arduino uno, another reason is reiability in general simple electronics have less posible points of failiure wich is not that big of a deal here on earth if your motherbord brakes you will probably be anoyed but simply replacing it will solve your problem, if a main bord up there fails there needs to be a redundant system ore the entire satelite yust became a verry expensive pice of trash Also batteryes are usually verry heavy and can only be charged while ther is sunlight so the satelite needs to sustain on them during its time without a direct line of sight to the sun such as beeind on the side of the earth wich currently exporiences a phenomen usually refered to as "night" So the reasonable thing is to have as simple and power eficcient (usually power efficient devices produce verry litle heat but tu go thru those reasons would turn this already huge comment into a entire textbook) devices wich are light and than have additional ones as redundency just in case something fails also there will be a bit of redundancy in the batteryes but due to only one of the computing devices running each time only one needs to be supplied with power, you even can cicle tru this devices to let one cool when others work or to balance weare and tear Another benefit of sending each picture as one color shade is that you can work with verry litle memory ( we are talking often in terms of bites and kilobites your sd card in your phone wold likly not last longer than a view houres up there) and memory usually is the one kind of Electronic wich is verry sensetive to radiation, also if the transmission gets interrupted there is a chance that you at least get the other parts wich does not make a great picture but it is enought to have reliabla and usable data And sorry for my english, my first languarge is german

[@jarikinnunen1718]

In Apollo show they washed stars totally out. When press asked that did they saw stars, Apollo 11 crew denied. Why stars are visible in earth but not in the space? In some practice modul was star map on the wall and in other, sextant for navigation.

[@DaveMcKeegan]

@@jarikinnunen1718 They never denied seeing stars All astronauts said they couldn't see stars on the surface because they were in broad daylight The question you are referring to was asking if they saw stars in the solar Corona during the eclipse they witnessed on the journey to the moon

[@jarikinnunen1718]

@@DaveMcKeegan Why were they going to use a sextant if they can't see the stars? It was in a 1960s TV documentary and now on youtube. They also didn't know about van allen belts and in the Apollo play they didn't mention it. Both of these were critical questions about can to do it. By the way, the manuscript was of Yugoslav origin and NASA bought it.

[@DaveMcKeegan]

The sextant used a scope, they could see stars through a scope because the narrow field of view cut out any stray light from the sun (exactly as Armstrong described in his answer to the question you referred to - "I couldn't see stars on the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the moon, by eye, without using the scope" And what are you babbling about, not knowing about the Van Allen belts? - James Van Allen discovered them using the Explorer satellites that were launched a full decade before the moon landings, NASA also launched 2 unmanned Apollo craft into the belts to test the radiation levels before they sent any humans through them

[@jarikinnunen1718]

@@DaveMcKeegan I meaning that: in crew didn`t joking how their ass hear burning in middle of belt.

[@DaveMcKeegan]

@@jarikinnunen1718 Where in what radio transcript do they say the belts were burning their arses?

[@XGuarden1]

you really over estimate flatearther if you think they not gonna call google photo fake hahaha

[@Top-Code]

Flerfs incoming, ready the logic and evidence.

[@citationrequired71]

Bit of an ironic statement. If someone can understand logic and evidence, then they wouldn't be a flat earther 😃

[@naturalphilosophy9649]

Can someone explain why in some images they have replicated the same clouds over and over?

[@delayedcreator4783]

where

[@DaveMcKeegan]

These could be where the satellite path is overlapping It captures a cloud near the edge of the one path, as it comes for the next pass further round the cloud has moved - similar to how you can get duplicates of objects when you shoot panaroma photos on your phone Either that or when they've been piecing the strips of images together there has been a half cloud or something on the edge of the frame that looks weird so for artistic sake they've filled it in with a nearby cloud just to make it look neater

[@raypeery6317]

@@DaveMcKeegan Wrong, they are over the images. You should know this one, eh?

[@raypeery6317]

@@DaveMcKeegan ignoring this one, eh? Not unusual, Dave. You're such a shill. But I must admit, you're good at it.

[@gaellafond6367]

Satellites are not sent to space to take pretty photos of the Earth. That would be a waste of money. They are there to collect data. You can create photo of the Earth by combining certain variables collected by the satellite. For example, you can combine data collected for the light wavelength 470nm, 555nm and 645nm. Those data variables need to be spread on a curve to replicate what our eyes sees. They are then combined to create a "photo". Also, those satellites are pretty close to the Earth. They only "see" a small region of the Earth. They go around the Earth from pole to pole, creating a "band" of data. You need to wait for the satellite to come back to get the next band and so on. When you stitch all those bands, you get a full picture of the Earth. Obviously, the clouds won't be on the same place when the satellite comes back, because clouds move. Sometimes, that creates a strange "copy/paste" effect. It's not because NASA copy/pasted clouds around, it's simply because clouds move... [EDIT] Turns out he is covering all those points in that video. I should have listen to it before commenting :)

[@helioshaul3924]

What film stock did they use in the Suit Mounted Cameras

[@astroevada]

Typically used Hasselblad cameras with a 70mm lens. Sometimes with a 500mm or 60mm lens

[@raypeery6317]

@@astroevada " film stock " - not camera.

[@astroevada]

@@raypeery6317 ohh 70mm "medium format"

[@micheleromaine7782]

I have just recently started watching your channel after discovering that my best friend has come out as a flat earther! And I must say I truly appreciate all of your knowledge you have and even more appreciative that you share it. Now I can have more information to share with my friend and try to stop his nonsense babbling. I’m seriously considering finding a new BFF🙄😒

[@schm147]

As someone who has debated flerfers, all I have to say is, good luck. Once they go into that rabbit hole they're too stubborn to come out. The moon and the sun are honestly the easiest ways to refute flat earth.

[@Chemasaurus]

Even if NASA had a live feed of the Earth rotating, flat earthers act like this would change their opinion about anything. You know if you bring them any evidence that they ask for, they will just shift the goalposts or try to debunk your debunk, both cases beginning and ending with belligerent, unintelligible screeching

[@rozzgrey801]

Yes, rational people look at the available evidence and deduce what is most likely from that, but delusionals like conspiracy nuts start with a conclusion, then carefully cherry-pick anything they can twist to fit their preconceptions. They distort observations to fit their ideas, but science adjusts its ideas to fit observations.

[@Globeisahoaxx]

If the nasa had a live feed of the earth rotating, I’d want to ask for a video of Australia at the bottom of the ball. Then zoom in and show us people and buildings upside down

[@Jan_Strzelecki]

@@Globeisahoaxx If you turn the camera upside down, they would be. your point (other than "I don't understand how gravity works") being?..

[@Globeisahoaxx]

@@Jan_Strzelecki whatever works. I just want to see them try

[@Jan_Strzelecki]

@@Globeisahoaxx There are at least two satellites taking photos of Earth every couple of minutes, including Australia, so they _did_ try.

[@Joshua-nt9cc]

So flat earthers keep calling pictures of earth from space as photoshopped, but where are all the original actual flat earth pictures that have never been edited? If its flat, why are there no actual photos of the entire earth surface?

[@gajustempus]

guess they think "God" disproves taking pictures of his domain, therefore photos of that kind are declared witchcraft and mustn't exist...

[@aunjohnsen5041]

I was for a substantial time contributing to crowdsourced mapping by tracing aerial photos, often taken from planes or drones as well as satellites. Many of these photos, even the ones taken from drones in relatively low altitude was taken with a NIR color filter, that is Near Infra Red, since such photos to some degree can see through vegetation. Useful to trace streams and paths in dense foliage or to discern agricultural fields from wild vegetation. Since NIR photos are actively used in mapping of all sorts, meteorological, military, official, commercial, and crowdsourced, maps are obviously fake.

[@Curt-iy7ck]

No explanation why you couldn't just take a real picture without editing.

[@Bnslamb]

Because there was no cameras far enough from earth at that time.

[@mistertagnan]

There is no such thing as “a real picture” everything you see has been edited somehow. Ignoring that, you can actually download the raw file formats from either NASA’s site directly, or downlink them from certain satellites if you have the right equipment. Also, it’s common practice to edit photos before releasing them, especially if you’re a large professional organization. Even for cameras that don’t shoot in individual RGB images will be edited slightly to make it better - such as making it appear closer to what the human eye would see, or making it look unlike what the human eye would see for more detail/beauty/contrast

[@pinkkfloydd]

Take your meds.

[@MisterHowzat]

He did. But in more than just a few words. Which is why you didn't get it.

[@plushiez_show8827]

Himawari-8 Satellite

[@kevbone4809]

I’d like to see all the flat earthers club together / crowd fund to get a small rocket built to take a camera out to space and take a pic of the “flat” earth. The under side would be nice to see as well. We have hundreds pics of a round earth and not a single one of a flat earth. I wonder why that is 🤔 🤣

[@raptorwhite6468]

Or they could've just hire a pilot to fly them over the antarctica

[@Globeisahoaxx]

As you go up, the horizon rises to eye level. Then you hit the Dome

[@raptorwhite6468]

@@Globeisahoaxx Oh, you again, I have a photo of upside down Australia, just as you wanted

[@Globeisahoaxx]

@@raptorwhite6468 at the bottom of the ball?

[@raptorwhite6468]

@@Globeisahoaxx Yes, on the "bottom"

[@kindnessfirst9670]

Explaining things to conspiracy theory people is pointless.

[@demo9855]

Na ppl are waking up to how the gov/media manipulates lies and twist the truths once the truth about 9/11 started surfing that’s when ppl started questioning and questioning things isn’t bad it’s a good thing matter of fact but the programmed think it’s bad see how it works.

[@kickstorm9930]

@@demo9855 Questioning things is good. Yes. But falling in conspiracy-ish thinking patterns is neither good nor heathy. Plus believing in a conspiracy is proved to make you more likely to fall for worse and even more detached-from-reality conspiracies. I don't think we are told everything, espacially politically, but come one. NASA is a science organisation. It's goal is thesame as science: tell us more about our universe, not lie about their discoveries. That woule just make them lose unfathomable amounts of money and would go against everything they represent and work for.

[@raypeery6317]

@@kickstorm9930 or... you've been brainwashed, so common sense doesn't work for you.

[@stuartgray5877]

@@raypeery6317 - he is talking about YOU Genius.

[@stuartgray5877]

@@raypeery6317 for an example of what he means: raypeery - please explain WHAT IS THE ISS? Really, what is the object that I can see with my own eyes that is always exactly where and when NASA says it should be? WHAT IS the object we can SEE in orbit of the earth with our EYES?

[@kindnessfirst9670]

Wait till conspiracy theory folks find out that the original Blue Marble photo showed the Southern Hemisphere on the lower half of the Earth! Publishers figured that would confuse people so the photo image was/ is almost always rotated.

[@MisterHowzat]

Don't understand Photoshop Don't understand fisheye lens Don't understand science Don't understand mathematics Don't understand normal language nuances ~ every flatearther ever

[@choicegospelnetwork]

How much are you paid 😅 ?

[@BosnianHeisenberg]

he isnt paid he just tells facts and gets money from youtube ads

[@choicegospelnetwork]

@@BosnianHeisenberg What is facts ???

[@raypeery6317]

@@BosnianHeisenberg "he isnt paid" "gets money from youtube ads" lol.

[@BosnianHeisenberg]

@@raypeery6317 no he isn't paid by any type of government he just gets money from ad revenue and photography so he isn't paid by any kind of government he just tells facts

[@raypeery6317]

@@BosnianHeisenberg and you know this how? You privvy to his bank statements? Jaysus you people are gullible.

[@JordanWallace-nb4id]

Maybe because they don't want people to see the truth, if you zoom in on the stars you will see that they are actually what Ezekiel described in the Bible in Ezekiel chapter 1 KJV. A wheel within a wheel. God has left us a perfect example of His creation right above our heads.

[@stuartgray5877]

SO what you are saying is that you have never looked through a telescope. Got it.

[@Katy_Jones]

So... can't focus a camera.

[@Top-Code]

@@Katy_Jonesit seems to be a common side effect of being a flerf

[@JordanWallace-nb4id]

@@stuartgray5877 read Ezekiel 1 KJV

[@stuartgray5877]

@@JordanWallace-nb4id lookup the NASA missions: Mars Global Surveyor, Stardust, Genesis, Deep Impact, Kepler Space Telescope, NOAA-20, and IXPE X-ray telescope. Tell me all of those missions are fake genius.

[@jhouck1969]

NASA's annual budget is currently around $20B - that's at least double what all the movie studios in the world spend collectively. You'd think if they were really faking all these photos and videos they would have more than enough money to do it right...

[@Bnslamb]

Money spend on pizza is more than NASA budget.

[@shapelessed]

The telescopes used to see untra far objects usually operate on frequencys of electromagnetic waves that are outside visible light because visible light does not reach us very well. That does not mean we can't accurately estimate the colors these photos would have if they were taken by capturing visible light. The only thing that's being done is literally just applying these colors to the image so we can see it. It's a lot like going to a doctor and taking an X-Ray. You can't see they x-rays but the machine does, It then translates it and displays it on a monitor using visible light.

[@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394]

Dave McKeegan, your one stop shop for debunking ridiculous FE claims.

[@amehak1922]

As a graphic designer, I understand a lot of what you said here way more than most of the other viewers.

[@younglionel88]

Agreed but 3D rendering and cgi's totally different from just basic image processing he literally avoided that

[@amehak1922]

@@younglionel88 I know. I still understood the terminology better than the average viewer.

[@LuciusSimonsen]

Good on you

[@chrispysaid]

It's amazing how many times you can destroy the flat earth argument and yet it just never dies

[@TheWorkmonkey1]

That's because peddlers of flat earth are not arguing from an honest position.

[@brucethen]

You can take a TV remote, point it at your camera ( or phone in camera mode) and press buttons on it, you will see on the camera ( or phone) screen a series of flashes from the transmitter. Your eye can not see these, but the camera sensor detects them and shows them as visible light on your screen.

[@teslafreak]

This makes sense, but is there a place I can look at the raw photos and data?

[@DaveMcKeegan]

With the right equipment you can actually pick up raw data straight off the satellites There are examples of this being done by people on KZbin

[@teslafreak]

@DaveMcKeegan Awesome, I'll look into that. I've watched people receive from weather satellites, but never seen them do anything from NASA satellites. Hopefully the equipment isn't too different, because I've been thinking of getting the stuff to try the weather sat stuff myself. Thanks!

[@beresfordquimby]

To any flat-earth supporters here: taking aside the science, _why_ , exactly, does this supposed cover-up exist? Who benefits, and how do they benefit?

[@Jan_Strzelecki]

Why, they get to live on all of those undiscovered continents, away from us uneducated rubes! 🤣

[@volkermeyer2970]

Best 14 minutes of justifications (not defense and explanation) for a lot of the space photographs ever seen... OMG is he fixed, amazing!!!

[@caine7877]

Don't forget that Photoshop was released on 19 February 1990. I have a degree in multimedia and games design and I was sticking images from Juno in Photoshop myself to have look at Jupiter. Very cool experience.

[@unnamedchannel1237]

Do they actually use photo shop or is it referring to photo shop as a generic term for photo editing ?

[@parickyates]

Thanks Dave for you thoughtful, temperate analysis. My sister has joined the flat earth position, so in discussing this with her I am finding that flat earthers exploit knowledge most people lack. Many objections they raise to a globe cites evidence that only someone with expertise in that area could refute. Everything from Aeronautics to Astronomy, from can water bend to how much rocket fuel is needed to get to space. And yes, aerospace photography is a main target for them since they must debunk pictures of earth from space. So thank you, thank you for your well thought out presentation on this topic. It really helps “illuminate,” and I will definitely be passing this video on. By the way, I also watched your video on fisheye vs rectilinear lenses, since flat earthers love to use this notion to try to argue the curvature of the earth in space phots. That was also helpful.

[@raypeery6317]

":flat earthers love to use this notion to try to argue the curvature of the earth in space phots. " Barrel distortion is a thing - and it's easy to see. It's easy to fix as well - just make sure the horizon is in the middle of the frame. EZPZ, no need for "debunking" it's real. I have lots of screen grabs from those high altitude balloons that show a flat horizon - wanna see? From 110,000 feet it's pretty darn flat.

[@charlehpock]

@@raypeery6317 are you saying the earth is flat or that it just looks flat from altitude? When you say "screen grabs", are you the owner of the balloon or do you work with these balloons or are you just taking pictures off the internet?

[@jacadarhome1406]

I've suffered through many conversations on many different topics due to each individuals personal definition of what is "fake".

[@deliciousgroove]

Dave, I have learned so much about photography from your Channel! Thank you!

[@seanmchugh3476]

I found this information on the 2012 Blue Marble: "Blue Marble, 2012 A ‘Blue Marble’ image of the Earth taken from the VIIRS instrument aboard NASA’s most recently launched Earth-observing satellite - Suomi NPP. This composite image uses a number of swaths of the Earth’s surface taken on January 4, 2012. " Not sure I understand the purpose of a composite there, because from that distance (500 miles), you would see the all land masses that the image presents and in the same proportions. That seems to be demonstrated by Dave, at 7:30, with the RH image of his desk globe. However the lens would need to be very wide angle. Perhaps that's it. I would be grateful for any thoughts.

[@venomsbite3925]

I really like this video, but i do have issue with the"why arent there live streams of the earth orbiting? That proves its flat!" Argument is uh. There are Livestreams? NASA has a livestream camera pointed out the iss towards the earth

[@nylronetynarf6952]

Where is the link to the original video?

[@netherite9051]

Best scientist quote: are ya bored yet?

[@olisipocity]

Playboy always uses Photoshop, and I don't see anyone complaint about that, nor accuse them of fake.