Why this photo wasn't shot with a fisheye lens ...

[@kellingc]

I've noticed that flat earthers will call ANY wide angle photo a fish eye lens, even without the distortion a fisheye creates.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

Showing nicely that flerfers have no clue at all of photography. Well, since they have no clue of anything, that's no big surprise.

[@oldtimegames96]

Oh no, they actually know EXACTLY what they are talking about. It's just that lying about it brings them their daily dough from gullible people.​@@bjornfeuerbacher5514

[@chiyoko7925]

I haven't seen fisheye lens get so much of an overstated reputation since music videos in the 90s.

[@K_End]

Theres so many space walks where you can clearly see straight solar panels and people immediately call it fish eye

[@Katy_Jones]

It's telling that none of the windowlickers who fall for it know what one is, and the grifters aren't going to tell them. Just another buzzword.

[@karapalmer7228]

"Hey Dad, I took your lens and I brought it to space" that's... unbelievably sweet

[@kirkbrajkov-kv9rc]

yah right?!! Is AWSOME!!

[@KodiakDug]

Yeah, that shot looked gorgeous

[@ItsDesm]

"Dam kids, always taking and moving my stuff, and now you take it to space? jeez marie"

[@karapalmer7228]

@@ItsDesm Haha, yeah I can see that happening

[@mcutshall32]

Bro I shed a tear. Not gonna lie.

[@nasanchez964]

I love those people who start by saying "I'm not a flatearther but...." And start vomiting the same crap copied from other flatearthers. This shows how ashamed they are.

[@StealthBoyElite]

"I'm not racist but..."

[@LSA30]

"I'm not homophobic, but..."

[@katieheys3007]

Isn't it like LEO who is a "demonstratable realist"? aka clown.

[@michaelcrispin1879]

"I'm not a Trump supporter but..."

[@DieBrunovsky]

"You are dumb, but hold my beer and thanks for making me stupider".

[@tannerbass7146]

People used to get thrown in loony bins for far less innocuous things than believing that the entire planet that we all live on is somehow flat.

[@Vykk_Draygo]

Good thing we've largely stopped doing that.

[@sexyshadowcat7]

Yeah all you had to do is be poor. And of course those places basically hell for the people in them.

[@derekcoaker6579]

I mean, didn't we Burn people for thinking it wasn't? Good thing we only giggle at them today huh?

[@michaelcrispin1879]

@@derekcoaker6579 Actually they did when people said the earth wasn't the center of the solar system and/or universe.

[@JeepersCreepers2013]

Actually the other way around

[@johnmorris7815]

An old friend of mine was a Concorde Captain, from conversations I had with him I will offer some context for this photo, first and foremost this was not a revenue flight as formating on an aircraft with passengers on board would have produced an air prox report, a pile of paperwork and probably a court martial for the Tornado crew. However as my friend said to me, on many occasions Concorde would undertake air tests and some crew training flights and these were usually conducted up the North Sea towards the top of Norway and back, now here’s the still remarkable thing that nobody gets about Concorde, it was significantly faster than the fighter interceptors that protected Europe from the old adversary the USSR, in order to conduct a successful intercept of such a high speed aircraft the fighters had to be targeted towards a piece of sky where the target would pass and the timing would have to be spot on to achieve the desired outcome, so whenever a flight test for Concorde was entered into the flight plan system the military would beg BA for permission to practice intercepts, the result was that as soon as the work part of the test was concluded and she was on her way home everything from Saab Viggen’s from Norway, F16’s from Holland F15’s from the American bases in Britain and of course EE Lightning’s (back in the day) F4 Phantoms and yes the Tornado F3, would be sent up to intercept, the controllers had to be really on their A game to get an aircraft within firing position and often it was not achievable, Concorde was pretty much empty at that point and so would be at FL63/65 at Mach 2/2.1 while none of the fighters sent up to her could go better than about M 1.5. So this picture was probably from an intercept gone wrong as the Tornado shouldn’t be vectored in front of the target, but in an attempt to gain a little speed and stay with here they climbed above and got this marvellous shot as she sailed by, the sky is black despite full sun, the horizon is curved as it would be at that altitude and while the crew of the Tornado had inflatable pyjamas over an immersion suit with a pressure breathing mask, the crew of Concorde where in shirt sleeves probably enjoying a cup of tea. What an incredible aircraft Concorde was.

[@gowdsake7103]

Or as David Gunston said they never made a Concorde with guns because if it opened fire it would shoot itself down

[@fromnorway643]

Interesting story, but one small correction: Norway has _never_ used Saab Viggen as that was built and used by Sweden only. The Norwegian air force used F-16 from 1980 until the end of 2021 when they were replaced by F-35s.

[@johnmorris7815]

@@fromnorway643 sorry I meant Norway as in the coastline not necessarily the airforce however everyone wanted in on the opportunity as these flights were not that frequent.

[@h.a.9880]

The Concord was a marvel of modern engineering. A shame I never got a chance to ride it... well, if it was still flying, I wouldn't be able to afford a ticket, so even just watching it land or lift off would be cool.

[@PeerAdder]

I worked in Filton where they were built, there's one still there now on display (#216 if memory serves me, the last one ever built; it's final flight back home in November 2003 flew over my house). Exactly as you said, it could fly so high and so fast that if you didn't know it was coming but relied on your own local radar to detect it, by the time your interceptors were airborne it would be gone.

[@blankityblankblank2321]

do not argue with a photographer about light/camera effects.

[@kibergx2]

photographer buy lens at shops, government have bigger fish eyes lens. argument closed.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

@@kibergx2 Your argument makes no sense at all. You didn't even watch the video, right?

[@ReValveiT_01]

Flerfs will argue with any professional about any profession. They don’t have the self awareness to realise how silly they are.

[@unstablewarpfield4530]

​@@kibergx2just a hint: if you want to end your argument with "argument closed" you might as well not put it out there in the first place. Worst way to get taken serious.

[@Khann_2102]

​@@kibergx2 "Argument closed" pfft 😂😂

[@djsmeguk]

Something that people who say "it's too curved" probably fail to realize: You can see the curve on regular planes at 40000 feet. You just have to know how to look. All you need to do is take a straight edge like the long side of your phone, and line them up with the intersection of the horizon and the edge of the window. You'll see that the earth has a noticeable bump in the middle of the window. It's a very easy experiment and I've done it lots of times with books, phones and other straight edges. The curve is always there. At 30000 it's very subtle, but much more noticeable at 40000 feet.

[@anteshell]

Exactly. Practically impossible to see without a straight reference, but it is still there.

[@jamesdspaderf2883]

The flat earth community claims the planes curved windows cause the effect. Go figure.

[@thomasmathew13]

I always love it too. "it's too curved" Buddy, if there was less visible curve, that's still a curve and proves pizzaland isn't real.

[@AnnoyingNewsletters]

*_Pizzaland is real; it's Flat Earth that's the myth!_*

[@fromnorway643]

If you do the math, you will find that the curvature from 40,000 ft (12.2 km) is the same as you would notice if looking at the edge of a 2-metre-wide circle from 6.2 cm above its centre.

[@albixx3893]

When was the last time any cult member anytime, anywhere said to someone: ''Oh yes I see it now, your argument is logical, based on facts, thanks for changing my mind on the matter''?

[@ReValveiT_01]

Never. And it never will happen.

[@truthsmiles]

This is why I will often ask near the beginning of a conversation with a conspiracy theorist “Is there any evidence I could provide that would change your mind?” If the answer is “no”, the conversation is pointless and therefore over. They’re often shocked to learn that MY mind _can_ be changed with evidence.

[@K_End]

Well I know of at least 2 flat earth KZbinrs that had their minds changed.

[@beteljooz6180]

Last year I was at a friend's party where one of the other guests, a stranger to me, had been told that In an amateur astronomer. The hostess gave me a heads up before I arrived that he might have questions. I wasn't there long before we were introduced, and not long after that he called out to me from across the room (presumably so everyone could hear), wanting to know if I would mind answering an Apollo moon landing question. I thought, here we go... He asked the common, "Why aren't there any stars...?" question. I explained that it was basic photography and how it all worked. He thought about it for a second and said, "Oh, well that makes sense. No one has ever explained it to me like that. Thank you." And that was the end of that.

[@a65232]

We're not here to change minds. We're here to plant seeds. We're here to help someone say "I know how that works." We're here to help them ask "What if?" The beginnings of knowledge are rooted in questions.

[@leonardoortega1302]

I'm always impressed that they ignore the fact that in all those photos you could see half the planet at that height if it were flat.

[@newsystembad]

They'll usually slur some nonsense about "atmospheric refraction", before pivoting to another topic entirely in a desperate attempt to cut you off before you can point out that the atmosphere is too impossibly thin to refract anything at that altitude.

[@AidanWR]

They will do anything, but point out their own fallacies. Like, how they are now saying that the final experiment "means nothing" after saying for years that it's going to mean something

[@Slicerwizard]

C'mon, Leonardo! FLERFSPECTIVE! It explains *everything*! :)

[@Sableagle]

"Passengers on the right side of the aircraft can now see Mt Rainier just behind our wing-tip, and for those of you on the left side, those spiky-looking things just behind the left wing-tip are the Himalaya." - no airline pilot ever.

[@leonardoortega1302]

​I would like to ask how the earth should look at that height if it were round?... Exactly how it looks in the photos?? Haha

[@eightysea3780]

Flerfers arguing photography theory with a photographer, this will not end well for them.

[@davidg4288]

50 mm lens on a 35 mm film camera is kind of the icing on the cake. That's the "standard" lens for that camera and it would absolutely not distort a straight line. "Standard" meaning not telephoto and not wide angle.

[@kirkbrajkov-kv9rc]

spot on!

[@jadedlotuz5095]

Flerfers argument is: "Yeah!? but was it a Nikon P1000?! No? Gotcha!" ;)

[@davidg4288]

@@jadedlotuz5095 No, but it was a Nikon all right, from 1972. Manual focus, probably manual everything. These cameras don't lie. Dave McKeegan would know how to work it. Flerfs would end up taking the film out without rewinding it or something.

[@DoCyberCrime]

As someone whos done VFX. The amount of "nuh uh" ive heard is amazing. These idiots are so self brainwashed. They dont see the logical fallacy of denying verifiable reality. Even if you force them to read stuff about it by posting scrots(since they wont click links, because they already known the thing they know nothing about is fake, as it has to be or else they are wrong, and they are right, so fake) they will read it and say "ya right blindly accept your experts" as they link videos of ISS inside streams with some idiot they dont know showing data corruption from compression codecs, low bitrate, packet loss, other normal video prod issues, and not remotely see the irony in it. Even when i link videos on data corruption in codecs. If the corruption doesnt match their current example by like 2 pixels being different, then they will scream how it isnt that "the color is green on mine, from the green screen idiot. That example shows multiple, not the same!!" Aka "nuh uh glerf"

[@StealthBoyElite]

I was fortunate enough to fly on Concorde in the early 90s as a teenager as my dad worked for British Airways and he won tickets to New York at a work Christmas event. It was an amazing experience. Madonna was even on the outbound flight :D And you arrived in New York one hour before you left Heathrow due to time zones and the flight only taking 3.5 hours. Most pertinent to this topic though, at 65k feet, I looked out of the window and marvelled at how the sky was, basically, black above a horizon that was very much not flat. It was only a slight curve but it was curved (and I guess it only appeared slightly curved because those windows give you a very limited view angle). The funny thing about all this flat Earth nonsense is that I can dismiss literally every single thing every single one of the grifters say because I've witnessed the curvature for myself. Then again, so have they, every time they've visited the seaside and looked at a ship on the horizon. My guess is that, if they were lucky like me and got to fly on Concorde, that they'd tell everyone the windows were fish-eye but only when you reached high altitude, or some nonsense like that. Thankfully, I'm not an grifter. Concorde absolutely isn't curved, either. What a weird thing to say. All that said, I didn't get an autograph from Madonna. She was fast asleep and her very large bodyguard probably wouldn't have been happy at a 14 year old bothering her. I was more excited to see the cockpit anyway (she was on the front row of seats and I passed her as I went to visit the cockpit, which you could still do in the 90s).

[@yourguard4]

Maybe, it will be possible again in the future, to experience it.

[@dogwalker666]

Me too, I have had flurfs claim the magical curved windows, But I was lucky enough to look out of the cockpit windows, The curvature was very obvious,

[@bryanfinegan5252]

As they used to say about Concorde and British Airways, breakfast in London, dinner in New York, luggage in Hong Kong!

[@djsmeguk]

You can see the curve in a regular plane, especially when they're at 40000 feet. If you use a straight edge lined up against the window, the curve is a noticeable bump in the middle.

[@dogwalker666]

@@bryanfinegan5252 Lol so true,

[@Case_]

Can confirm that having a background in photography and astronomy can be painful on the internet.

[@barryon8706]

Now we know the truth: they retired the Concord just so nobody can see that it's really shaped like a banana.

[@Hirsutechin]

All the ones in museums were specially straightened out before being put on show, honist!

[@notmyname3681]

It's obvious. Occam's Razor etc. The simplest explanation is that Concorde was actually a flying banana 🍌 👍

[@jamesphillips2285]

I will be so pissed off if this becomes a real conspiracy in 10 years. People claim the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade center didn't happen. Despite HD video being available of the second plane.

[@TheOnlyToblin]

That first comment you showed actually scared me. That person is supposedly not only a licensed pilot, but also has a sister who worked ON the Concorde? And not only can't they spell the name of the plane, they also thought the adjustable nose cone (the droop snoot) was the airplane's actual look in flight? WHAT THE FUCK? Aerodynamics, HELLO?

[@PeerAdder]

It's called lying.

[@h14hc124]

@@PeerAdder Someone lied ? On the *internet* ?????

[@noodle_tax]

@@PeerAdderflat earthers never lie, bro

[@Thomas-fb5tf]

A lot of rich folk can beome licensed; doesn't mean they will get close to flying people. Probably stick to a Piper with 1 or 2 passengers. I'd rather him be a "pilot"who doesn't know planes than a doctor who thinks a ladle is a surgical tool.

[@wernerviehhauser94]

Now just wait until someone claims the Concorde is curved....

[@dogwalker666]

Concord had curves in all the right places.

[@tubecated_development]

There was no Concorde,

[@crestavid]

Concorde was CGI, NASA faked it

[@dogwalker666]

@@tubecated_development There definitely was, I still have the boarding passes.

[@VegaTheLyra]

​​@@tubecated_developmentplease explain the existence of the two Concordes in the Air and Space Museum in Paris, France

[@UnexplainedCinemaPresents]

I don't understand why anyone who has watched any amount of Dave's videos would EVER question him on cameras or lenses or think they're correcting him. Like correcting Jane Goodall on the behaviors of chimpanzees.

[@tubecated_development]

Every flerf that falls on its face only hears a ‘mic drop’ in its head. Welcome to Dunning-Kruger Effect on steroids…. Similarly, expecting a flerfer to embrace self-awareness is like asking a kid in a Superman costume to choose to eat kryptonite over candy.

[@belperflyer7419]

Indeed. I used to mess about with cameras a lot in my youth (in fact I proposed to my wife in my dark room nearly 60 years ago - I claim the safe light was an influence :) ). I'm no expert and I do understand a bit but Dave's expertise is way beyond whatever mine was once. I was shocked to see one of the fisheye lenses in the catalogue was over £1000! definitely not my scene.

[@Darryl.M]

People doubt what they don't understand. It's an ongoing degeneration of education systems.

[@joerichardson4325]

​​@@belperflyer7419My 1st wife was/still is a photographer/graphics artsy professional. Not me. She and I dated some during high school in the early '80's. (Married in '87 while I was in the US Navy). She was yearbook staff/photog. Occasionally, when our schedules aligned, she'd take me to the schools darkroom for some one-on-one double exposure lessons! As Archie and Edith sang "Those were the Days"!

[@brag0001]

​@@belperflyer7419 still cheap compared to what video lenses for the pros cost 😂 I once met a guy while back packing whose job it was to take care of those lenses during documentaries at remote locations when they weren't in use. Apparently they were 70k a piece 20+ years ago 😮

[@dansimpson6844]

Obviously it is a banana disguised as a concorde.

[@Wikkid2daCOR]

Conanacorde for scale?

[@Thirdbase9]

Nom no, no. The earth is banana shaped.

[@robadams1645]

Designed by a god to fit in the human hand.

[@sourisvoleur4854]

@@robadams1645 or in Matt Powell's backyard

[@PressAtoJ]

So the Earth, which we can observe to be round, is flat. But the Concorde, which we can observe to be flat, is round. Huh. I had no idea how much reality wasn't real

[@DCCentralComedy]

Earth is round not Flat

[@ledrid6956]

@@DCCentralComedy Sarcasm isn't a strong suit for you huh?

[@senwod70]

Thats just how deep the conspiracy goes, man!

[@Groffili]

Always remember: while Dave is an intelligent guy and talk competently about a lot of things physical and science... he IS a photographer. Don't mess with a photographer about a photograph!

[@rodrigosampaio1560]

This doesn't stop flat earthers to "nu-huh"

[@mcutshall32]

​@@rodrigosampaio1560arguing with Flat Earthers is like playing Chess with a pigeon.. Even if you do win, they will strut around the board knocking the pieces over and crap all over the board pronouncing they win anyway.

[@Thomas-fb5tf]

Yeah, but the Flat Earthers are not scientists, photographers, physicists, pilots or any skilled trade.... but they can talk confidently about ALL of it! Dunning Kruger.

[@Spookieham]

I've flown on Concorde at 60,000ft at Mach 2 in 1992 and I can assure you the curve of the Earth is clearly visible from the passenger windows.

[@hpoz222]

sooo jealous!

[@chiyoko7925]

As a wide angle lens fan, it's a huge pet peeve when everything gets called a fisheye without having the telltale signs of a fisheye lens. Extra annoying to see people call what was clearly shot on a regular focal length a fisheye photo.

[@aden538]

They don't care about the truth, they care about convincing enough people that they are right. Lying is a valid tactic to them.

[@michaelcrispin1879]

Dave takes a single false claim and can beat Flerfs to a pulp over and over and over again with facts... Dave does not just give one example of how the claims are wrong he gives 10 or 20 in every video... Total overkill, but I still love it!

[@kirkbrajkov-kv9rc]

dave ROCKS!!

[@jjasper7512]

You need a sledgehammer to crack a nut (flerfer) and Dave is that sledgehammer! Great work, very informative

[@rogeriopenna9014]

Gotta love the Concorde It's also great to demolish arguments like "if we had tech to go to the moon in 69, why don't we go anymore" The Concorde first flight was in 69 too. And nowadays we don't have supersonic airliners. Was the Concorde fake by that idiotic logic?

[@Dyno05]

We must have “lost the technology” 😂😂. This is sarcasm.

[@vacuumandgaspressurecoexisting]

We still have military jets so that technology still exist so your argument falls apart straight away.

[@ImieNazwiskoOK]

Also the opposite of space which does have quite some similarities: deep sea exploration. Challenger Deep (aka the deepest place in the ocean) was first reached by a crewed vehicle in 1960(even the dates are somewhat close), you know when was the next time it was done? 2012, by James Cameron. You could even look at the two and do the talking point of the first one looking like a model, while the second one needing high tech to do it(and certainly lots of certifying and testing, even though we did it back then).

[@rogeriopenna9014]

@@vacuumandgaspressurecoexisting bullshit. The analogy is valid because just like we have fighter jets, where a single pilot can go, and with several differences in tech because of the size, we also 1 - STILL HAVE ROCKETS 2 - STILL HAVE TRIPULATED SPACECRAFT 3 - STILL HAVE CAPSULES THAT CAN REENTER THE ATMOSPHERE 4 - STILL HAVE NON TRIPULATED PROBES THAT LAND ON THE MOON, LAND ON MARS, LAND ON ASTEROIDS, etc

[@vacuumandgaspressurecoexisting]

@@rogeriopenna9014 Still can't go to the moon and broadcast while it was so simple back in the late 60s and early 70s AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[@OfentseMwaseFilms]

Flat Earthers don't have the slightest bit of clue what a fisheye lens is! So long as horizon has a curve, it's fisheye.

[@sam_c95]

As always, super polite and engaging while also packed with facts, evidence and explanations to prove your point. Never change Dave, keep it up. Also, I love the people trying to explain how a fisheye lens works to a photographer haha

[@sakuraice22]

Last week I found out one of my neighbours is a flat earther, I had never met an actual flat earther in real life so it was extremely surprising. His main point was that "gravity doesn't work" AKA he doesn't understand gravity, but he also didn't care to listen to his other neighbour trying to explain it to him, so she just gave up and laughed, as did I.

[@brendanpells912]

If the earth was flat, why would there a horizon? From that altitude, wouldn't it be possible to see much further?

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

Flatearthers mumble "perspective!" and think that explains everything. :D

[@abiofficial-ws7pn]

Flat Earthers also say air and air pollution reduces the distance you can see.

[@leonardoortega1302]

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 I always think about this and even with its "limited perspective" this would be a sphere around each one, which would make the horizon look curved.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

@@abiofficial-ws7pn Which obviously doesn't explain why one can see the upper parts of mountains, towers, ships etc. in a certain distance, but not their lower parts. So they are back to mumbling "perspective". :D

[@abiofficial-ws7pn]

​@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Let me pretend to be a flat Earther for a sec there. (Retch). We can see mountain tops because air at higher altitudes is thinner and so doesn't block things as much.

[@threetythreepercent]

Come for the flat earth owns, stay for the photography lessons. Nice one Dave :)

[@jiubboatman9352]

The difference between a a good claim and a bad claim. A bad claim has little or poor supporting evidence. A good claim is defended with strong evidence. NIce job Dave.

[@phillipanderson7899]

Man. I love how cool earth is when people actually bother to explain shit rather than reject it on presupposing what things must have to be in order to confirm their biases, and if things don't make sense, they just reject the information that counters their biases

[@Basics4Dumm135]

But you haven't taken into account the most acclaimed flerf argument of all, Dave: - _"Nuh-uh!"_ Gotcha!

[@seanofpeace]

Cleary, the correct retort to "nuh-uh" is the well-reasoned and thoroughly researched claim of "yeah, huh!"

[@Thirdbase9]

And the other. It's all Sea Gee Eye.

[@SuperDavidEF]

@@Thirdbase9 Alright Creaky.

[@dougwark6150]

Uhm uh… “uno reverse” GOTCHA!

[@jonemeigh5588]

Rusty did not seem very pleased with his close-up...😎

[@joerichardson4325]

Needs Visine for those bloodshot eyes! Must've been a late night...

[@JustShawn11]

The one good thing about flat earth is it made me come across a lot more interesting plane/optics facts from actually knowledgable people

[@roachtieler]

Another sublime analysis and explanation of something that shouldn't need explaining, and done with calm, clarity and humility where others could so easily mock those you're needing to debunk. Excellent as always. No wonder we all voted for you to go to Antarctica

[@kirkbrajkov-kv9rc]

i agree

[@clairecelestin8437]

You make excellent content. I'm no slouch at science, but you consistently teach me something new or point out an argument I wouldn't have thought of.

[@rustisamust9079]

So in summary, flerfs don't understand lenses, photography, scale, distance, aircraft and ... oh yes, perspective. Who'd a thunk it!? 🙄

[@kirkbrajkov-kv9rc]

you could have wrighten a book just naming off what thay dont understand

[@joerichardson4325]

But that won't stop them from showing up soon with solid proof they don't understand anything remotely scientific. I've been glancing back at some vids of Dave from a year or more back about "stars visible from pics taken on moon"(?), and others. Many flerfers are flooding the comments section NOW! The Final Experiment has them nervous! Absolutely glorious!!!

[@mcutshall32]

Flerfs. I'm stealing this.

[@bueb8674]

One of my favourite is when they're looking at planets/stars and their camera is just blatantly out of focus, but they think they're seeing something 'unusual' in the out of focus blob when it's actually just the dust in their lens

[@mrpierre3355]

Damn! That shot from his father's camera looked beautiful! Wait...so someone will now say that was fake? What's wrong with these people? Roll on that Antarctica experiment...

[@michaeldarby3503]

Concorde! Famously known as the "flying banana. Sad that I'll never get to fly on Concorde

[@Bloke-in-Stoke]

And with all that fine, detailed, forensic review, the flerfs will still just say nope. Thanks for sharing once again. Cheers 🍺

[@JulianaAndersson]

I love how people who actually know nothing about lenses, cameras (or camera phenomena) or photography always seem to be experts with lens distortion. Dave you have such an uphill battle when you try to explain photography to non photographers. Props dude. People have such weird ideas about how photography, cameras and lenses provide “proof” of weird shit. Like ghosts, flat earth and moon landing hoaxes. 😂😂😂

[@AlbanLemaire]

As always, your videos brings real constructed arguments to debunk false claims. Great video !

[@stevej71393]

I still can't understand why anyone in a position of authority would be motivated to lie about the shape of the earth, according to the flerf worldview. Can you imagine how impossible of a task it would be to lie about reality itself? What would anyone stand to gain from such a thing?

[@l0rf]

Usually something like control. Which is ignoring the long list of things governments and powerful individuals can just... do, with no consequences, even if they're caught lying. The US could invade Iraq because they got the blame for 9/11 after being a US ally for decades and we all knew they lied and they later admitted they lied about the WMDs but the war still happened, they still got away with it. So why bother with a nearly impossible task that gives you no benefit.

[@tb6303]

Exactly. There is absolutely nothing to gain. No money. No fame. No power over people's lives.

[@GamesFromSpace]

If somebody like orange man or Korea man could reveal every other leader was lying, they would.

[@Wadusher]

The only thing they stand to lose by admitting they're wrong here is their ego, unfortunately that's the last thing this type of person ever wants to lose...

[@tb6303]

@@Wadusher I think it's the last thing most people want to lose.

[@tonyleukering8832]

Having shot a fisheye on many occasions, it's obvious that folks supporting the theory of a fisheye being used for that photo have not shot a fisheye, themselves. In my youth, we might have called such statements, "prattle."

[@PeerAdder]

Today a better description for such statements would be "bollocks".

[@stephenlitten1789]

@@PeerAdder And other equally polite expressions

[@TbirdMan]

As usual, you have done a great job of explaining the optical physics involved with short focal length/ wide angle lenses and longer focal length/normal or telephoto lenses. As a retired photography teacher of over 30 years, I couldn't have done it better. The bad news is that you exceeded the attention span of most flat-earthers after about a minute. We are not dealing with folks who genuinely want to learn, but rather those who are just feeding a confirmation bias for what they currently believe and this well presented explanation does not work for them. Thanks for the effort though.

[@S14N9LS]

As hard as it is to argue with Dave about the shape of the earth - it'd still be easier than arguing with him about the validity of a photo.

[@kirkbrajkov-kv9rc]

Right?:)

[@jamesphillips2285]

Photographers know their cameras.

[@frankmario6747]

To be fair, it's by arguing that we can all see this video. You could have a reasonable doubt since doing a cropped and zoomed photo with the plane at the center on the original photo could be possible but it would be really hard to do and raise even more questions so yes its probably 99% sure it was not a fisheye lens. (i promise i'm not a flatearther dont hit me i come in peace !)

[@CryptoRoast_0]

🔥🔥 Although I still think the Mesos launch is the most conclusive evidence of clear curve. Its exactly what FE demands to see; not fisheye, and not NASA. But they all run from it every time.

[@kentthompson3836]

I had the amazing privilege to fly on Concorde and the Earths curvature was there for all to see from both the cabin and up on the flight deck.

[@stubbydinosaur4332]

No! Your just paid by NASA to say that!!! 🤬🤬🤬

[@dravendarkplays9607]

Honestly the two Dave's are all i need to learn things. Dave mckeegan, and dave "mr" farina

[@NeutralDrow]

They've definitely got the most information-dense debunking videos. Professor Dave already had a prolific science communication channel, so goes without saying. And Photographer Dave is more specialized, but goes out of his way to include other relevant context!

[@milkmon5449]

Prior to situation in Ukraine, there was a mig-31 rides to near space for hire in Russia for €18K, & there are photos on it. Just like Antarctica, most flerf will never go to situations where their belief is challenged.

[@wmfwoodworking]

I love how thorough you are in your explanations of things that most people are unfamiliar with. Thank you for another great video. Well done mate. ❤ Poor flat earthers keep striking out over and over again. They are just fundamentally wrong about almost everything.

[@kirkbrajkov-kv9rc]

so simple so "to the point" and full of proof in such shott videows good going dave

[@johnwelton2606]

Great video Dave but flat earthers will just claim photoshop has been used to curve the horizon whilst leaving Concorde straight.

[@KonradTheWizzard]

..ohh yeah! The 80'ies edition of Photoshop probably had a text prompt to do that automatically. 🙄🙈

[@MichaelOnines]

@@KonradTheWizzard It was all speech-to-text, so you just had to say "hello, computer". I saw it in a documentary about whales and aluminum manufacturing.

[@kirkbrajkov-kv9rc]

@@MichaelOnines hehehe ST4 was no joke:)

[@alanbiker5838]

You debunk flat earthers better than anyone else.

[@corndogsauce6434]

Wooaahhh! Picture at 1:49 really messed my eyes up. I couldn’t figure out how to refocus them 😂😂 great work Dave you are fighting the good fight. Even though there’s no argument really. lol

[@jonathanadams5903]

Should probably mention that the ammount of curve you see at any given altitude is largely dependant on field of view, so you can get pictures with different levels of curve at the same altitude without fisheye lenses.

[@followeroftheprince]

It's got a droop snoot. It's a snoot, that droops

[@NeutralDrow]

The snoot drooped?

[@KonradTheWizzard]

@@NeutralDrow The snoot drooped considerably, whenever snoot drooping was desirable te keep yer eyes on the road.

[@joerichardson4325]

Reminded me of Spy vs Spy (the white spy at least)!

[@tealdolphin3721]

A snoot that droops you say?

[@PeerAdder]

@@NeutralDrow Yes, look it up. Or look up it, if you prefer.

[@toxik420]

Random people arguing with a photographer over the type of lens used in a photo is craaaazy

[@comeasyouarent]

Again, undeniable. Always flawless. Yet, don't you ever feel like you're talking to the walls?

[@kirkbrajkov-kv9rc]

shhhhh if he figures that out we may loss him :)))

[@ibeyheald9200]

I had a couple of friends who were Flatearthers who's main argument was "You are just believing what you have been taught as I did, you need to free your mind and do your own research ".. Anyways I would have convos with one of them and listen to everything they spouted and then, go on to pull it a part explained why thay would not work and how we do not actually see that in reality. I would get two words in and they would already start arguing, rather than actually listening to what I was say, they would argue their belief and why I am wrong. One day after a couple of hours I managed to finally get my point across. I shown him a basic working model of the MOON phases, using the Sun (as the Sun) My hand infront of my head as the MOON and my head being the earth giving me the perspective of reality that we actually see... So I get to the point where I have shown all the Moon phases.. He starts laughing going mad saying " Yeah but the Earth is not causing the shadow is it now?" I was like .. "Sorry how do you mean?" .. He went on to explain that "Moon phases are caused by the Earths shadow , so my model that shows all the moon phases from the perspective we see in reality is wrong as it doen't show that being caused by the Earths shadow .." I litterally laughed out loud I said " WHAT.. You actually think that the phases are caused by the Earth shadow..?.. Wouldn't that be an eclipse basically happening from new moon to the day before Full moon and then the same back to new moon..? At this point he looked lost, I asked him a simple question.. " Do you even know the point what it is you are arguing against and that you are looking a little silly mate.." .. His response " well one day I was arguing with a Globe Earther on a flearth page and he said that is what happens.." I looked dead in the eye "What so you don't even know what the model you are arguing against says?? It looks like you are believing what you have been taught mate, maybe free your mind and do your own research.." hahahaha.. He went quiet excepted that my model worked then went away I though " YES " he gets it .......then he started sending me videos of people explaining how the moon phases work on flat earth yet with no actual basic working model.... as he couldn't even explain his belief which is a clear indication that he is only believing what he has been taught on flerf videos and doesn't even understand it yet argues it as his belief... Anyways they are still Flat Earthers and we are no longer friends.. :)

[@vacuumandgaspressurecoexisting]

They are better off without you.

[@PeerAdder]

@@vacuumandgaspressurecoexisting only in the sense that they are continuing to insulate themselves from truths that they can't handle. As for you, even your YT alias gives away the fact that you know literally nothing about the model of reality you are arguing against. So unless you can provide actual verifiable evidence of your claims I think we'd all be better off never hearing from you again. In other words, put up or shut up.

[@ibeyheald9200]

@@vacuumandgaspressurecoexisting You are right my new flerf friend, as pointing out facts and showing actual basic working models of how the science actually works and testing the theories now you mention is silly. so yeah they probably are I mean who even wants to know the truth anyways.. Will you be watching the final experiment my new Flefy friend? . P.s will you be my new Best Flerf Friend For life or My new BFFFLfor short please I love you to the moon and back...aahhhh sorry I mean to the Dome and back my BFFFL.. x

[@chriss8562]

They can't put up fortunately because every time any of them do an actual scientific experiment it proves them wrong. They then proceed to make up some nonsense as to why they got that outcome. This nonsense never has a scientific base either, they just try and throw some scientific words into a sentence and seemingly that is enough for the flat earth community. I love a good conspiracy but I want to see hard facts/evidence and never do with the flat earth hypothesis, only contradictions and weak arguments.

[@tenrec]

Absolutely the best video of its type I've ever seen! I have a background in lenses, photography, and optics, and your explanations of everything were right on the money. Very well done!

[@buruzn09]

Apart from the entertainment of increasing my general science literacy and dunking on flerfs, videos like this really feed my growing desire to get more into photography as a hobby.

[@GsK5832]

Just the topic of Earth being round or not existing is crazy in 21st century

[@joaohenriqueneuhaus2023]

At this point Dave's dog be like: "Dad, I need pets to sleep, time for another video!"

[@clifflogan7974]

I worked on the U-2 from 1998-2004. Amazing

[@joerichardson4325]

Bono? Is that you?

[@Alysm-Aviation]

When you eventually bring this photograph up for the 3rd time, overlay Walter Bislins curve calculator, it matches so beautifully... almost as if it could predict reality.

[@HadriansWallNZ]

I love how you explain the ins and outs of a photo with your expert photographer knowledge. I look forward to seeing your photos of Antartica 👍

[@RobertCampsall]

5:25 " . . . it all comes down to perspective". Whoops! You just lost every flat earther - to them, "perspective" is a seemingly magical phenomenon that can shift and morph to explain any claim a flerf will make. A ship disappears from the bottom as it goes over the curved horizon? Perspective! For some inexplicable (to them) reason, as a ship gets further away, "perspective" makes the image vanish from the bottom up - why the bottom and not the top, or from the sides? Who knows? Only god, perhaps. The sun - again, according to them - is only a few thousand miles (gotta use "freedom units" if you're a "true believer") somehow(?) above the "flat plane of the earth" appears to go below the (flat) horizon. How does this happen? Perspective! A flat earther claims that they can see more of a tall object far away than a "globe model" but if the world actually was flat, why can't you see the entire object from top to bottom? Maybe due to a little refraction, but mostly . . . perspective! Why does the night sky appear to rotate in one direction in the Northern hemisphere while it appears to rotate in the opposite direction? Why, it's our dear friend, perspective! Isn't it nice they have a magic word they can use to explain anything and everything that they don't understand (ironically, it is just about anything and everything about the natural world and the science and math used to describe the Universe that they don't understand, so their ignorance is vast) about the world they live in. If only they'd open their eyes and minds to knowledge - they just might gain a little PERSPECTIVE!

[@st.peterunner8758]

This guy knows cameras. Check out his back catalogue of videos and you'll understand haha. I feel like lots of people only know about the flat earth stuff

[@kirkbrajkov-kv9rc]

iv looked :)) he a master or vary close to

[@Tallenn]

All this talk of fish-eye lenses makes me think of the Starship integrated flight test 4 footage, which I watched live. during most of the time in space, the horizon is located in the bottom half of the frame, about 1/4 way up from the bottom, and is clearly curved. If the lens were fish-eye, it would be curving the opposite direction. Yes, I know the flerfers will just say it's CGI fakery, but then, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

[@EjonAlmirson]

The sad thing is flat earthers will still refuse to believe such a well-reasoned and detailed explanation as this. Nothing will ever convince them.

[@davepage5242]

I’m not even here for the debunking of flat earth, I just really enjoy the explanations.

[@memkiii]

How can we tell this was not shot with a fisheye lens? Because we are not idiots trying to make outlandish claims.

[@RaimoHeikkila332]

I can already hear in mind the sound of CC's voice saying something like... "All right, if it isn't a curved lense, then it's CGI. Oh, and by the way, space is impossible!

[@nekowolf583]

Everyone has their own personal Concorde.

[@dannybaw11]

You know they will claim CGI, that's the fall back for when all else has been proven

[@RaimoHeikkila332]

@@dannybaw11 Exactly.

[@jarls5890]

The only thing I can think of that "could" be an argument is if that full photo you showed of the concord with the sun above - is actually a crop of a much larger photo (that was never released) taken with a fisheye where the concord is only a small part of the center of the picture. However I guess that would have resulted in a very grainy image if it was that heavily cropped and magnified.

[@mhoover]

Wow. That was a very in-depth analysis. You always put a lot of research into your vids.

[@williamramey1959]

We have largely become an idiocracy. People think that the basis of today's science is "Because I say so." Thank you Dave for another great video. One reason that flat-earthers hang onto their self-induced deception is because of their underlying conspiracy theory or theories. If they concede that the Earth is a globe, then they think that they too have to give up their conspiracy theory or theories.

[@stevej71393]

What do you mean "become"? People are no more ignorant than they have always been. Imagine if people had social media during the American Revolution.

[@williamramey1959]

@@stevej71393 From your point of view, "Because I say so."

[@Scudboy17]

​@stevej71393 you can track education and literacy levels by reading old letters. Compare the letters written home from Revolutionary War soldiers, Civil War soldiers, and soldiers from both world wars to letters written by people today. The use of and understanding language has drastically decreased. This is just one barometer of general education levels, you can also look at diaries, log entries in workshops and ships, and mathematical understanding can be measured by the reliance on tools to calculate for them. Older carpenters can calculate an angle for roof in their heads while apprentices these days have touse thier phones.

[@Evan-k]

The want to feel special, that's why religion isn't dead

[@aden538]

@@stevej71393 The problem is that modern technology allows ignorance and lies to spread faster. Credentials, experience and education used to matter, but now any bozo with a phone can proclaim themselves an expert on any subject, broadcasting lies with no real consequences. There is simply so much information, true and false but all presented as true, that it can be hard to tell what is real or not. People find the answers they want, not the answers that are factually true.

[@danteeightsix]

Didn't you know? All photographs are fish eye lensed, but only once the curve is seen.

[@khosta6690]

😂😂😂😂

[@scubastevedan]

I love how Dave always has his dog with him and how the dog is always craving cuddles and scratches from him.

[@kirkbrajkov-kv9rc]

wish i could thumbs up 1000 times to your post

[@5peciesunkn0wn]

Yup. Makes it hilarious to see the flerfs whinging about the dog because they can't refute anything in the video.

[@jimmic41656]

I was not prepared for the violence of the emotions at the end of your video... Is flat earth still a discussion topic after that ? honestly ? Good job Dave.

[@SteelHand071]

Forgetting the flat/globe argument for a moment, that photo taken with the 1970's lens is just stunning

[@CaptFoster5]

It's both horrifying and hilarious that flat Earth believers still exist today.

[@SCWillson]

Half the ones online are grifters. The remainder are their victims.

[@marclichtendonk]

"That may well be, but the earth is still flat" - Every Pizza-Earth believer out there. Truth doesn't matter to them, no matter how clear cut the explanation.

[@iggi3985]

Dave, mate, you’re arguing a point with logic to people that don’t use logic to arrive to their beliefs

[@fredrick965]

Well, that was pretty damn thorough. Good job.

[@larsgottlieb]

The logic, the photography knowledge and the flerf smacking is Excellent But what keeps me coming back is just how happy that dog is (o:

[@Wharferine]

seriously, people think the Concorde was curved? FFS they are desperate

[@ImperrfectStranger]

If you compress any image of the Concorde horizontally, the passenger window line appears curved. But that does not disproved Dave's claim. In fact it may help prove it.

[@australianstig]

I laugh at Flat Earthers having personally seen in person, the Earth's curvature from the cockpit of a Lear 29 during my time in the Air Force Cadets in Australia.

[@gametime2473]

Why is everyone conflating barrel distortion and fisheye lenses in these flat Earth debates? Fisheye lenses are a specific thing and almost no one is using them to take panoramic photos. I am confused.

[@gowdsake7103]

Wow really ? try THINKING about when these were taken

[@MrKOenigma]

Thanks Dave for pointing things out in a calm and easy to understand manner... I would go crazy

[@NicHills]

Amazing logic and explanation - sadly the flerfs will either ignore it completely or fail to comprehend any of it....

[@Lassisvulgaris]

But then, why let EVIDENCE get in the way of a good conspiracy...?

[@steveb6386]

Flerffers grasp at 'fisheye lens' and know nothing about photography. Least of all how any lens of various focal lengths actually take the light to the film/sensor. It is as ridiculous as saying 'forceps' and pretending to be a surgeon.

[@furiousfelicia5751]

FE is having a bad day with this one😂

[@EBDavis111]

Oh I wonder where the fish did go. A fish, a fish, a fishy OH!

[@AbuMaia01]

And it went ... wherever I ... did go.

[@powereduppacman426]

It izz a most elusive fish!

[@garnet4846]

@@EBDavis111 these comments don't even make sense.

[@garnet4846]

@@powereduppacman426 you and ebdavis are practically joined at the hip in these comments. Weird.

[@powereduppacman426]

@@garnet4846 Not surprising you don't get it, like so many things that go over your head...

[@cartimandua_]

Really enjoyed this video - occasionally I get lost with your explanations - but this one kept my attention and understanding. Thanks 👍🏻

[@Ausknutz]

I subscribed to your channel years ago due to the photography stuff, but I really enjoy your technical explanations to disprove flerfs. Not that they will be convinced by facts and data, unfortunately...

[@kirkbrajkov-kv9rc]

" facts what are those" said every flatearther EVER

[@txag007]

Dave, even though you live in the UK, you are an American treasure!!!!

[@kirkbrajkov-kv9rc]

i know thats right!!

[@joerichardson4325]

Now if we can get him to say "while" instead of "whilst", we'll know he's agreeing with you!

[@urbanspaceman7183]

Don't ask flat earthers to leave their thoughts, they don't have many to spare.

[@chrismarshall8526]

This was probably the best one you have done so far, nice one Dave🌎

[@larrybremer4930]

I flew from NYC to London on Concorde in 1980 and can confirm once over around 50k feet you can make out the curve and it gets more apparent the higher you go. As it burns fuel Concorde flies higher. As I recall we topped out at 58k feet and M 2.02 on the cabin readout where the curvature was quite clear. I seem to remember a transatlantic flight on a 747 where we were around 44k feet at cruise not being sure if I was seeing curvature or not but somewhere between that and 50k is probably where it becomes detectable through a commercial airliner passenger window.

[@bebetjones5551]

I love that you give the facts and not your opinion in most situations. But always backed with lots of facts if opinion is needed.

[@CYBERBOIUK]

Just want to point out, in the flat earth meme, if you use photoshop (or any other tool that can count pixels), there are more pixels between the edge of the wording & the sea than in the centre, indicating curvature. The biggest issue is that flerfers cannot comprehend the scale of Earth, or any science/logic for that matter