Video

Thank you Mike, that is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time. I can only guess you are trolling for S&Gs? Congratulations, you got a reaction. Now, would you like to explain why the distant ship appears to be sinking? I can hardly contain myself in anticipation of your next creative word salad.

I'm not sure I follow your logic given that the two ships we see are actually identical. Since we have two identical ships at different distances, it is the same as seeing the closer ship sail away. Bur for what it's worth, I do have other videos on my channel showing large cruise ships sailing away, including the following 200x speed time lapse. Please be sure to read the description under the video for the details: czcams.com/video/_8-kKrM1xYQ/video.html

New Zealand :)

@@dazzathecameramanW New Zealander Kiwi

Hi Marie, I haven't "disappeared", I'm still right here but there is only so much "stupid s***" and all the toxicity that goes with debunking it that anyone in their right mind can take. Grifters will continue to grift. Liars will continue to lie. All my debunking videos are still there addressing all the stupid s*** if anyone needs to watch them. I hope you are doing well.

That's fine but you must understand that there is something happening in the world right now and it is very toxic. I'm so alone and i'm fucking terrified... terrified​@@dazzathecameraman

In last year I found that my dad had died.And my kids's father had died and nobody told me.... I just don't get it.What did I do so wrong for peopleTo hate me.

​@@mariecampbell5540 I'm sorry to hear of your loss. What is it that is happening in the world that is toxic? I will probably reply tomorrow as it is getting late here now.

No Mary, the Sun is not rising in the wrong place, if it was, every single star, planet and the Moon would also be in the wrong place and astronomers all over the world would be talking about it. Everything, including the Sun, are right where they should be.

Indeed there are other videos that zoom into small BOATS rising up and down on the ocean swells. This is why I don't film small BOATS, I film SHIPS. I have also filmed large cruise ships that are much larger and taller than these big cargo ships. My camera height is approx 30 ft above the water, well above the beach and well above the waves and swells, and we can see the closer ship right down to the water line but the distant identical ship appears to be sinking. How do you explain this? If the Earth is flat and "water always finds its level" then we should be able to see all of the distant ship all the way down to the water line. This video can't prove that the earth is or is not stationary but I do have other videos that do prove that the Earth is a rotating sphere. The fact that I see the stars circling clockwise around a point in my Southern sky proves that there are TWO points of opposite star rotation 180 degrees apart. This would be impossible if the Earth is a flat disk with a dome above it. You can't have the stars rotating in two opposite directions around two points of rotation. These are observable facts. All you have is denial.

@@dazzathecameraman I did something similar with one of Wolfie's videos of an oil rig as I took a screenshot while it was zoomed out and enlarged that before taking a screenshot of the zoomed in version. The zoomed in version was of course much clearer and more detailed than the enlarged version, but their _proportions_ were exactly the same.

"What is telephoto vs zoom? What is the difference between telephoto and zoom lenses. So telephoto and zoom lenses are not the same. The main distinguishing point between them is their focal length. A lens that has the shortest value of up to 85 mm will be just a zoom, everything that is above it can be called a telephoto lens." clideo.com/resources/what-is-zoom-and-telephoto-lens The Nikon P1000 has a focal length range of 24mm to 3000mm (at 35mm format equivalent). 3000mm is a HUGE telephoto zoom. I zoom in right up to 3000mm. There is overwhelming proof (not just evidence) that the Earth is a globe. Your denial and your religious belief does not change this fact.

Allah is the creator of earth and skies he told us that the earth is flat islam is the true religion it’s the truth of our existence.@@dazzathecameraman there is a difference between zooming and traveling with your sight it’s clear that you did not use a telephoto lens in this video because of how bad the image quality was when you zoomed in.

@@vamplate105 you claim I did not use a telephoto lens yet you can see me zooming in a very long way - to 12.6 miles away in fact - and yes, that is why the image quality is "bad" because at 12.6 miles, we are looking through a lot of atmosphere, haze and heat distortion. Your denials do not change the facts and you have completely ignored the fact that although we can see ALL of the closer ship down to the waterline, the distant ship appears to be sinking. The amount of the ship we can see doesn't change at all as I zoom in. Again, your denial and your religious belief does not change this fact.

Hi Sharon, even though you are YELLING your comment, you are very much mistaken. No, it is not a fisheye lens. You should be able to tell this in my wide shot at the start when I am zoomed right out. Do you see any fisheye distortion? I don't. But to be very sure, before replying to you, I took my craft mat which has a grid on it and I took some photos of it from near and far, with and without zoom. Guess what? No "fisheye" distortion. I would be happy to send you the photos. Or maybe you could buy a P1000 and test it for yourself? But let's say the lens was in fact a fisheye lens (which it isn't), how exactly would that cause the distant ship to be sinking while the closer identical ship is not? Please explain (in your own words). Thank you.

What's really funny is how you have said absolutely nothing about the content of my video. If the Earth is flat as you claim, then we should be able to see all of BOTH the ships. Instead, one appears to be sinking. Poor effort, try harder.

😂

no need czcams.com/video/1zRNhLnaLZg/video.htmlsi=opliZnVR4YBi7jGN

all assumptions and buzz go outside and do your own research you basement rat (not intending to offend)

Happy holidays

Frohe Weihnachten, Grüße aus England :)

You know flat earth Dave wouldn't pay out even if he was taken to space to see the globe Earth for himself? He would simply claim it was all an eloborate hoax

A flat earthers challenge is ALWAYS fake. He currently owes me 6 btc. Make sure you tell him he still owes us all money

Sure. As it says in the description under the video "The distant "sinking" ship (Princess Paula) was at 12.6 miles. The closer ship (Glorious Mahuta) was at 8.86 miles. My camera was at approx 30 ft above the water. I still have available for you the original video and photos, the GPS data for the ship locations and my filming location and the weather and tide conditions at the time." If you would like to email me at dazzathecameraman at outlook dot com I will send you the GPS data of the ships, my filming location, sea and weather conditions etc

Thanks for demonstrating flat earther research skills for us, champ.

​@@dazzathecameraman Ok. Yeah sorry about that, I should have read the description. If you put 8.86m observer height and 12.6 miles away you get including standard refraction 17' should be hidden. I film these ships almost everyday, so far 326 days of filming since Jan last year. In your footage you cannot see the hull of the ship or the bow of the ship, therefore there is actually closer to 50" of this ship hidden. Almost 3x what should be hidden. You can see a very slight inferior mirage, this means that the horizon has been brought closer to you. This is why the bottom of the ship is not visible, it's due to the refracted horizon being close. It has nothing to do with earth curve. I multiple observations to prove that it's the horizon that is being refracted which hides or reveals and nothing to do with objects in the distance being displaced down or up. If you ever want to actually chat about it I'm always available. I just filmed one of these ships that was 27 miles away and you could still see the 4 crane pillars but the distortion and zoom of my p1000 was losing it. That's 112' of missing curve.

​@@Dr-Curious Lol. Yeah I should have read the description. Trust me I've done way more observing ships over the horizon than anyone you could mention and I have more footage than anyone you know of.

@@planereality3675 That doesn't matter, champ. It's the fact you can't model nor explain the effects using scientific principles you claim you are observing that matters - Shouting "eye limits" and "diffraction" as if they are explanations for simple obscuration is about the best I've seen from a FE.

Correct, the version 2 hardware version of the C320WS is not as good as the V1 for sky monitoring. The image is quite light and noisy. It does not have the same contrast as you see in this video. I have just bought a C325WB which performs much better but you need to set the spotlight LEDs to on and tape over the same spotlight LEDS. This seems to change the camera's exposure settings and improves the contrast. I will post some video links for you below a little later. I use ContaCam to detect meteor events etc

Check out the recent videos by my friend MargotChris. In his latest videos, he is using a C325WB. www.youtube.com/@MargotChris/videos When I get time, I'll try to post a video showing a comparison of the V1 and V2 of the C320WS - and later a comparison with the C325WB.

Thank you for your information, unfortunately my C320WS is waiting to shipment but I don't know later it will get the Version 1 or Version 2, are turned on spotlight lamp & cover the lamp with tape will be beneficial to improve C320WS V2 ?

@@azminawwar8820 "are turned on spotlight lamp & cover the lamp with tape will be beneficial to improve C320WS V2 ?". I will test it to confirm, hopefully overnight tonight (it is aftrer 6pm here now). I can tell you it doesn't help the V1, it makes it worse. You might like to email me at dazzathecameraman at outlook dot com and I can send you some info, screen shots etc

@@azminawwar8820 I taped up the spotlight LEDs, set them to the lowest brightness and then set them to on and it vastly improved the contrast and removed all the video noise. I still think the version 1 C320WS is a better camera with more stars visible though, but on the version 2, the LED "hack" certainly helps.

Of course not. The distant ship at 12.6 miles away is 580 ft long. How much curvature would you expect to see across such a short distance from left to right? In order to see just one tiny degree of curvature from left to right, we would need to be able to see 69 miles of horizon. As for the effects of the curve we see on the ships, remember that we are zoomed right in and the curve is tens of feet (and matches globe earth predictions).

Do you really think you are the first person to raise the question about tilt? No, you're not, and "you could ask yourself" how much the objects that disappear or stand behind an "alleged" curvature of the Earth (like wind turbines) would tilt backwards. Have you ever done this? The distant ship in my video is 12.6 miles away. Let's make it easier if you like and assume it is a nice round 10 miles away and instead of a ship, let's say it is a tall building. Tell me the angle it will be tilting away? This is a very simple exercise even if you have only very basic math skills. Can you tell me the answer and show me your workings or is this too hard for you?

Do you need some help with the math?

I guess you must be unable to calculate the answer? I'll give you some help. If we assume the Earth is indeed a globe with a circumference of 24,900 miles and divide that by 360 degrees (a full circle) we find that the Earth measures at 69 miles per degree of curvature. That is just one tiny degree of curvature. The furthest ship in my video is only 12.6 miles away. 12.6 miles / 69 miles = 0.18 of one degree or less than 1/5 of one degree of curvature / tilt. Do you really think you could see 1/5th of one degree of tilt? Seriously? You could ask yourself why you fell for that Flat Earth claim in the first place.

Wow what a F terrible question. You obviously got it from a flat earth video.

​@@Dr-Curious No, I didn't get that from a Flat earth video, I got it from logical thinking and physics, because if an object disappears behind the curvature of a sphere, then it "must" tilt backwards at some point, but we "never" see things like that lean away "no matter" how far away they are.. You can look at pictures of wind turbines, no matter how far away they are, no matter how little of them can still be seen and they are almost completely covered by a supposed curvature, they always remain "straight" and that is physically illogical. And if you believe in curvature, why don't you expect scientists to go to Lake Baikal, which at 670 km should have a curvature of 35 km... and show you there how water “bends”.. (Funny that no one has been able to prove this yet 🤫) PS: The earth's surface is not "smooth as glass". In the depths of the sea there are mountains higher than Mount Everest.. So we humans believe that water adapts "smoothly" to the shape of a globe that is actually not "smooth" at all, so we should also believe that water adapts to the "unevenness" of the earth, but we never see "both" because we only ever see that water is "flat and smooth as glass", and we only "believe" that it bends to an extent that is too large to be perceived. and that is exactly the manipulation with which we have been indoctrinated. Every time they can't prove any curvature, official science says that the Earth is just too big, that's always the excuse for everything. You can only ever "believe" in a "whole" of the earth, which is why FE is not a belief, but a realistic, less theoretical and tangible "starting point" because FE doesn't even try to "invent" a whole of the earth to refer to the "perceptual area" of the earth, namely the earth's surface. Pretty much no one would believe that we live on a giant globe if it hadn't been claimed, and if you strip away all the claims and theories and only refer to what is really "perceivable and measurable"... then the globe theory can't hold up hold more... Without the undetectable and antilogical selective/choosy attraction, the whole heliocentricity no longer works... (that's why this force was "invented" 😉)

Perspective and Vanishing Point huh? Here, I made another video about this czcams.com/video/Zcs6dwXZDOg/video.html