PROOF! Stars are close and local! (Allegedly)
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 05. 2022
- @flatearthbanjo has PROOF the stars are less than 100 miles away*. Who would have known that this knowledge could have been gained by nothing more than a tweet (and the Dunning Kruger Effect)!
*Some stupidity may be involved with this statement.
----------------------------------------
#FlatEarth #NikonP1000 #DunningKrugerEffect.
Donate via Willow: wlo.link/@MrSensible
Support on Patreon: / mrsensible
Membership: czcams.com/channels/PKx.html...
Follow on twitter: @ItsMrSensible
Contact on Discord: / discord
Please subscribe and be Sensible!
Stay Sensible
--------------------------------------------------------
Additional Music & Sound:
www.bensound.com
www.zapsplat.com
www.purple-planet.com
So, we lost the ability to take some ground and polished glass discs and mount them in a tube?? We really must have gotten dumb.
No, only flerfs.
Yup, very very dumb.....
They don't make tubes like they used to.
So, according to this logic, my 35 years old Swift Audobon 8.5 x 44 binoculars don't work anymore. Geez, I guess I gotta get me one of them Pee 1000 instead.
So that reflecting telescope my father and I built was fake? Gad it must be, we built it in 1984.
We did own a couple of Nikon's but didn't use them on the telescope, as I worked for Kodak, we used their cameras.
Oh dear Banjo, your ability to do research is astounding (ly bad.)
As a photographer I can safely say that camera optics are not rated in “X miles / km of zoom.” 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
the response from Nikon for 160km was more than likely referring to the clearest resolution the camera could do. Anything beyond that would start to impact resolution. But as we all know, you gotta' lie to flerf.
@@billob4285 the translation that comes up later in the video shows that Banjo is being completely dishonest. The original text doesn’t say “This camera can zoom up to 160km.” The original text says “With this zoom you can see objects like the Matterhorn 160km away.” 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ #GottaLieToFlerf
The Ford Motor company has lost the technology to build a model T
They tore down the original factory and all the engineers are dead.
Building it back up is impossible. ;)
As my uncle knows, He is busy rebuilding two model T's getting parts is impossible everything has to be custom manufactured.
@@dogwalker666 Or the people who restore aircraft from WWII. If they need parts, they have to be custom made.
Or the people who restore WWII armored vehicles. Same situation.
ISTR a series about restoring tanks on Netflix. One of the vehicles they were trying to restore was a German Panther tank. Since the factories were pretty much bombed out of existence before 1945, just imagine the nightmare of trying to find parts for that!
@@rogerrabbit80 yes indeed, infact I am trying to refurbish an oscilloscope made in 1980 and the parts are no longer made. I am have a heck of a Job.
@@dogwalker666 Good luck with the rebuild. A Tektronix by any chance?
I saw this video when you first uploaded it, and immediately called the Orion telescope company to ask why they deceived me into thinking that stars were big and far away. They hung up on me.
Then I called NASA to inquire why they are lying to us. I've been on hold for hours now, but I can still hear laughter in the background...
This 100 mile range of P1000 view is absolutely stupid, even for flat earthers. That would mean people from different cities would be unable to photograph see the same Moon if the distance between the observers would be over 200 miles. Say London and Glasgow, or New York and Chicago. Not to mention different continents
Funny how flattards claim they can see 1000 miles with the P900 when it suits them .
But realizing that would require coherent thought, which is beyond the capability of real flerfs.
I can't even begin to understand how they think the stars are setting when they are 160km away.
The furthest away a Nikon camera can capture is 100 miles away? Now that is very strange. The Sun travels over the Earth on the Equinox at about 1040 mph we are told. Yes I know the flerfs say that is how fast globies say the Earth spins. But if you say the Earth is flat and stationary then I can assume that is the speed of the Sun over the flat Earth when it is travelling along the Equator on the Equinox. So the Sun will be too far away to photograph after less than 5 minutes assuming it is less than 100 miles up of course. All those lovely Sunset photos must be fake as no camera could photograph stuff that far away.
.
Exactly how brainless do you have to be not to see the implications of someone saying that nothing over 100 miles away can be photographed? Umm, oh yeah, as brainless as an unthinking sheeple of a flerf.
.
Banjo has demonstrated very nicely that if you don't use it, you lose it!
Also, you can see over 200 miles from 37,000 feet with the naked eye, but apparently, a fully zoomed P900 can't "see" half that far.
Imagine if they attempted to engage their brains before they made utter t!ts of themselves.
@@ReValveiT_01 What brains?
I've got many photos of mountains well over 100 miles away. That claim is ridiculous.
...only if you had it in the first place...
@@thegrumpyoldmechanic6245 - Then you must have been using something other than a Nikon. A Canon, maybe? Or an Olympus? I'm pretty sure they can image things over 100 miles away. It's weird, though. I have a Nikon D90, which going by the numbers must mean it's 10x less powerful than a P900? But I've used my D90 to capture images of the Orion Nebula and the Andromeda galaxy in great detail. I guess that means they are "small and local," too. Weird.
Another misconception about the zoom of camera lenses, is that the 125x for example means that you see things magnified 125 times than you would with your eyes. It just a simple division between the 3000mm max focal length and the 24mm min focal length. Those numbers aren’t even real! They are equivalent to a lens on a 35mm full frame camera! The actual focal length of the P1000 is 4.3mm-539mm but it has a sensor so small, like that of a mobile phone! The actual magnification from what you’d see with naked eye would be if you’d divide the 3000mm by 55mm of the equivalent focal length of our eyes. That would give a magnification of about 54.5x. That’s also why the 50~55mm lenses are called normal lenses, and every lens with a focal length smaller than that is called wide angle, while any other lens with bigger focal length is called telephoto.
Ahh, yes, but you can bring ships back into view, by using digital zoom... because digital is newer, and analogue technology was never good enough to bring ships back into view that had gone over the horizon...
damn! flerfs can't do simple trigonometry and can't remember what are the angles in triangle with sides 1, 1 and 1! and now you drop so much info, millimetres and other scary stuff!! How dare you!? Don't you know that flerfs don't know how to use metric system?
@@KaZiK_LT Good point!! 😂😂😂
@@briannewton3535 Does the P1000000 bring dead black swans back to life as well?
@@theturtlemoves3014 I would say that if the swan has not been plucked and stuffed, and currently in the oven on regulo 4, I think there is a good chance that swan could come back to life. If Yahweh can get his ass to earth, take human form, sacrifice himself to himself, die for a couple of days and become god again, Then I see no reason why a black swan can't do similar.
If I were to adopt a flerf. I would adopt this one. Naive, clueless and devoid of all sensibility, and got mixed up between the technology that took man to the moon, and a telescope. If Banjo boy has more content, PLEASE do more. I really enjoyed this, and was fascinated to find the sun is less than 100 miles away.
He has a channel full of stupidity.
no wonder why we are having such a difficult time with solar power, its been designed for a sun that 93 million miles away...
If the Sun was levitating 100 miles above the Earth, It would always look like it was touching the horizon to all observers outside of the tropics. Everyone in the tropics would have been burnt to smoking cinder a long time ago.
I thought Kyle Adams was just naive and a bit slow but basically an OK guy. Now I know he's a POS, just like all true flerfs.
Id adopt Arwijn. And make him come of out of the closet he is so stuck in. Oh and make him get a job. Can you imagine
once again a flat earther stuns us all with rock solid evidence! not only has he got a quote from the historically accurate book 1984, he also has a tweeter from some guy. i would love to see how science debunks that!!!
But "Wonder Woman 1984" was released in 2020. Makes you think. Hmm..
It's a well known fact that a work of fiction is always 100% accurate.
Science will totally oblierate him with the well known and scientifcally undefeated brilliant phrase that brings doom to all lies and deception since ancient biblical times with blessings of shiny light of divine truth; Nu'huh.
@@xenomorphphantom8852 Nu'huh, that's Hebrew for flerfs are gimboyds.
I first read "rock solid dense" wich happens to be a good description of flat earthers.
I would have told him to drive 160 kilometers and get a close up photo of the star. 😂😂
I love the Monty Python parody.
It’s hilarious how he claims that 160 miles with a Nikon camera whole showing a detailed image of the moon.
This is one of the most hilarious flat earth derps ever. And still they wonder why we just can't take these bozos seriously.
At last! My search is over. I’ve been looking for “The stupidest use of literature in defense of nonsense in the history of the English language,” and there it is. My God! Is this person completely incapable of reading a book?! Is this really what we’re up against?!
Yes.
Banjo old telescopes can't be made...
Mount Palimar Telescope: HOLD MY BEER!
Actually a member of my astronomy club DID make a perfect replica of Galileo's first telescope, which still exists, by the way. I looked through that primitive thing and marveled at how Galileo could have diagrammed the moons of Jupiter, the sunspots, the craters of the Moon as well as he did. The poor quality of that scope is why Galileo wasn't COMPLETELY blinded by his observations of the Sun.
Not only have hundreds of copies of that telescope been made, but YOU can probably arrange to look through one and appreciate Galileo's achievements much more than you do now.
Yay! Another Flerf using Technology he does not understand, to explain a Universe he can not comprehend, while using words that do not sense good make. This is like Christmas Day in a Toy Shop.
This video is hilarious. I'm poorly at the moment and this has really made my day. Well done Mr Sensible, keep up the good work 👍👍👍
Glad you enjoyed it!
I hope that you get better soon.
Banjo isn't just an ignorant fool, he is also a contemptible, blatant liar.
What do Nikon really say about using a Coolpix camera for photographing star clusters, nebulae and distant galaxies. "Not suitable".
No way. I just asked how far a flat earther thought stars were away on Creaky’s channel. This is what happens when we start with a conclusion and then try to confirm our preconception rather than try to disprove it.
Banjo is giving even comatose, lobotomized clowns a bad name!
The book '1984' was written in 1949. Flat Erf banjo thinks that 160KM is a limit? If this is true, then Mr Banjo would be at a loss to explain how it would be possible to observe the moon from Paris, when its overhead in Munich.
But "Wonder Woman 1984" was released in 2020. Makes you think. Hmm..
@@theultimatereductionist7592 🦹♀🤣
It really does seem that rather than some people no longer having the brains they were born with, they now have a lot less.
Its a sad state of affairs all round really.
Thank you Mr S for finding another one.
This guy embarrasses other flat earthers, never mind sane folk.
Let me guess, in school he was sat at the table with the big crayons, but only long enough to finish eating them all.
Maybe - just maybe - the reason Nikon gave the example of seeing a huge mountain from a city is that whilst the camera could clearly photograph things more than 160 miles away, something called THE CURVE OF THE EARTH gets in the way at ground level......
It's very difficult to see more than 160 miles away to another terrestrial object. The record is only about a hundred miles more than that, from mountain top to another mountain top.
Flat Banjostring may have mistaken a kaleidoscope for a camera lens.
Or he can't even focus a camera. Like Mr. S said, too stupid to own one.
Banjo is blatantly dishonest.
A week or two ago, I saw some similar piece that showed both the original Nikon tweet in French and its alleged English “translation”. The tweet meant something completely different from what the flerfers claimed its meaning to be. The tweet in French actually said something to the effect that on a very clear day, then from Zürich you could take a picture of the Matterhorn, about 160 km away. (See, my French O level wasn’t wasted!)
EDIT: I see you covered this in the later part of the video. I’m very pleased that my French was good enough to understand the tweet without the help of Google translate, given that I took my O level about 45 years ago, and only got a dubious grade C.
How to catch elephants with binoculares, tweezers and a jar: Find the elephant. Turn the binoculars, so the elephant gets small. Pick it up with the tweezers, and put in the jar.....
"Surely this man is crazy"
"This man is crazy. And stop calling me Shirley "
😁
The only thing banjo got right was the 1984 quote. I totally forgot about this book - it is a very good read indeed.
So his point is, that because the camera reaches focus at 100 miles stars have to be 100 miles away??? What the actual shit.
That's like going to a car dealer and wanting to return the car, because it stopped driving after 500 miles because it ran out of gas.
And the movie just as good. One of John Hurt's best roles.
I loved 1984 when I was 12, then when I was 14 our English teacher had us read it aloud in class, the entire book!. We had weekly quizzes on it and an exam. Then we moved on to Huckleberry Finn, a book I loved and had read 4 times. English teachers, dedicated to convincing students that reading is painful. I was in my 30s before I could read either book again.
@@Foolish188 That's terrible! Teachers are ment to encourange, not to discourage. I read almost every night before I go to sleep. Okay, it's mostly novels, but now and again I do read a biography or a historical book.
Right now I'm reading about Thor Heyerdahl's visit to Easter Island, and not so long ago I read a captivating historical book about the Tour de France from the very beginning and until the mid 1990s.
I'm happy to hear that you did pick up reading again, afterall. So many treassures to be discovered.
So that's why stars are always out of focus, and I thought it was because flerfs cant camera
@@Foolish188 wow, that sounds awful. I was lucky enough to have an english teacher whose homework was: read one book a week. Every 4 weeks he had us present our favorite book of the past month. It was a great time. He had his own library and I read everything, from the classics to vietnam-literature, sci-fi ...
Wow, that was some serious dumb! Banjo stating that telescopes are lost technology, whilst using what is basically a telescope with a bunch of CMOS sensors at the focal point.
🤣 I recon poor Banjo is trying to fill the hole left behind by "That Guy". not an easy task, but he certainly puts the effort in. 😄
Creaky and Scimandan are also covering the stupid today, Santos wasn't flerf but is was dumb on a Thanos level!
Nikon is probably in an awkward position , Yes they're getting plenty of free advertising (which is great) unfortunately from flerfs .
They probably not happy about being associated with people who clearly count crayon as a food group.
thanks Mr S. I almost spat coffee on my keyboard when you called him Banjo String 🤣
Those sort of moments are why I don’t drink while watching Mr Sensible 🤣
What's even funnier is the look on people's faces when they find out what a "Banjo String" is. 🤣
@@bosunbones.8815 🤣
Let's see the George Orwell quote in full:
_'What are the stars?' said O'Brien indifferently. 'They are bits of fire a few kilometres away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could blot them out. The earth is the centre of the universe. The sun and the stars go round it.'_
So this is what a character in a fiction novel said, and who is the character O'Brien? O'Brien is a member of the Thought Police. And this is who FE Banjo is using to defend his position…
He also thought the book was written in 1984! (Note to Mr Sensible... it was in fact written in 1949, not 1933)
It was written from 1944 to 1948. It was called 1984 because Orwell simply reversed the eight and four. It was published in 1949.
Actually, if we want to be really pedantic, the correct title is Nineteen Eighty-Four, but most people can’t be bothered to write out the word form of the letters. Including ne, just before
@@lidbass Let's get really, REALLY, pedantic and note that George Orwell was Eric Arthur Blair's nom de plume. :D
@@chrisantoniou4366 Do you know, I thought of that as I was writing the comment. Thank you for correcting me!
@@lidbass No problem! Always happy to out-pedant a pedant! :D
That I'm still amazed by how shockingly stupid flerfs can be is amazing in itself. It's almost like they revel in the challenge to come up with the silliest flerf 'proof' they can.
Dear oh dear Banjo... On a clear day, I can see over 200 miles from 37,000 feet with the naked eye. Next time, engage ya brain before you make a total plank of yourself.
I always thought the sky was made of glass spheres. Regardless of their reputation, I do wish we'd open more asylums...the internet isn't the right place for these people.
The Internet and their mother's basements are better than letting them roam. Can you imagine what life was like when Grammar Trolls were running wild?
so we cant build telescopes anymore only cameras.
Very nice that people like this nice Banjo fellow are coming along to carry the flat earth torch. I see Nathan Oakley's channel is a ghost town these days. Not too many views, very few comments.
In a world without flat earthers, what would we do for entertainment?
“1984” was released in 1948, and written between 1946 and 1948, not in 1933.
Maybe thinking of Brave New World.
@@Foolish188 That would have been 1932, but since that is only one year off, this sounds like the most likely explanation. In any case, “1984” was written with the events of WWII and the German propaganda fresh in his mind (including Hitler’s concept of the “big lie”, which had been a staple of Goebbels’ propaganda).
He does realise that light doesn't stop at 160 km, right?........................... Right?
Of course it stops at 160km. It's gonna be very tired after running all that way at 299.8 x 10^8 m/s
Ah yes, the one where he translates a tweet into something completely different, then uses it to prove the flat earth.
It would appear that he's only pretending to be an idiot, he's really just as disingenuous as all the other flerfs.
Possibly. The other option is of course, that he is in fact as stupid as he appears, and totally gullible to boot; and that there is someone out there trolling him by feeding all this total BS in the certain knowledge that he will fall for it hook, line, and sinker, and then go on to repeat it all to other gullible nutters in the interweb.
Wow, what an interesting quote! From a book. A fiction book. Written by a man who, as far as I can tell, had no special education in the sciences. This is like quoting Pokemon for evidence that Evolution is fake.
...does...does he think that light just stops after traveling a certain distance? I mean, thats the only way you wouldnt be able to see France from Dover, so I guess he must think that?
We lost the technology to make telescopes? Then why can I buy one on Amazon for just over £100? What the actual fuck?
So in other words, hes not an idiot, hes an outright liar. Someone probably aught to kick that over to Nikon because I somehow doubt they'd be OK with that considering it risks their reputation.
Some of them do claim that light gets plum tuckered out if it travels too far. I keep asking them what happens to it then? Does it fall to the ground? Can you catch it in a bucket? It is a violation of the law of conservation of energy in any case.
That was one of the best Monty Python references I've heard in a while.
6:45 - ... Did I hear him right? Is he saying that the reason everything looks round is because the lenses are concave and convex?
... Has he ever seen what a Nikon lens looks like cut in half?
It amazes me that BanjoString thought no-one would check the translation
Did he really think that no one would actually have the tweet translated? Wow. I sincerely feel sorry for him. He kinda acts like he is either majorly stoned or got something deeper going on. 😂😂🤣. Woe the difference between the two translations. He was right when he said that he didn't read french. For real.
Banjo is one of those who proudly put his baby daughter on video, teaching her to say stupid sht in support of the flat earth.
He ABSOLUTELY deserves every single lever of work used against him out here in youtubelandia.
This here is why we should never stop.
I’ve only spent a bit o’ time “debunking” a flerf and that was one of Banjo’s “We See Too Far” Mount Fuji vids.
I showed, with links, he was totally full of crap of where he said that the images were shot. He deleted my posts “post-haste!”
He a joke. 🤪
Stringyboys standard of evidence has never been particularly high. And he is also rather good at misrepresenting stuff.
If that's good lying, who can lie badly?
That 160 Km is an estimate of the distance at witch, under optimal conditions, it can still resolve human sized details. Meaning that a person would cover about 3 to 4 pixels vertically. That says NOTHING about the maximal distance it can detect a bright object against a black background, like a star.
Flat earth banjo is a few strings and a drum skin short of a working banjo.
It's almost too stupid to be real. Thanks for that, it was very funny.
I didn’t know that we’d lost the technology to build telescopes……. I think someone should look into that! 😁😁
Huh, that's weird. I built my own telescope. A Dobsonian with a hand-ground 18" diameter mirror. Plus I built the housing (aka the body of the TELESCOPE) that holds the mirror and allows you to aim at distant objects and focus it. That was around 1997. So...I think we still have the technology.
@@beteljooz6180 Fully agree. It was a pun and a dig at the flerf in the video.
I own a Nikon 1000 and I read George Orwell's 1984 and I noticed that if you zoom enough into the wall, you will be able to see the screen/camera and speaker of BigBrother, nice work Nikon... nice work. Do not worry Nikon, I'll keep it in the down-low.
Or in a hole in the wall....
I don’t think 1984 was written in 1933. I seem to remember it was finished in 1948 (published the next year?) and he swapped the last two digits around for the title. Doesn’t change any of the excellent points you made, as usual, Mr S.
Flat Earth Banjo should have Dueling Banjos from the movie Deliverance as his channel soundtrack.
I was not expecting a Banjo Inquisition!
Duw, duw, duw. 🤦♂️ This guy is totally clean off the scale.
A lot of people are going to be puzzled by your comment.
Dim ysmygu ar y bws, diolch.
There are approximately 18 stars that have been resolved as more than a point source. Arcturus is not one of them. Banjo String is showing an artist's impression of what it would look like. List_of_stars_with_resolved_images
Yeah, but can you resolve them with a P1000?
@@davidfaraday7963 Not even remotely possible.
@@Mandelbrot_Set No, but you can certainly do a better job focussing and choosing a star overhead on a still night with good seeing and a tripod. You can also resolve quite a few planets with the P1000...czcams.com/video/I5GwAP1lkAw/video.html
And again, CZcams's edict that we shall not present any evidence to show we are correct slams the door, giving liars a level playing field with the truth. In spite of that our pet Flerftopian committed suicide with a ridiculous "translation." He debunked himself. Why am I not surprised?
@@davidfaraday7963 _"Yeah, but can you resolve them with a P1000?"_ Yes, you can completely resolve one of them.
We dont have to go to stars in order to debunk a flatearth. Lets take something closer, like the Moon. So whats the distance and size of the Moon according to flat earthers? We know the Moon has about 32' of arc in the sky. What would be the size of a 32' object if it was in the clouds, like 10km away? Well, it'd be about 90m of diameter. But the Moon moves away too. So what would be its size when it moves to another country, like 1000km? It'd be about 9000m of diameter now... So what's going here flerfs?
Oh boy... rock solid evidence, that FLERFS can't use a online translator...
Like a well-chosen ringtone, the mental alarm goes off in my head, Frau Farbissiner exalts, “Lies, all lies!” Such transparent misinformation from a new star on the horizon, Banjo. ,
I just read that the P1000 is equivalent to a 3,000 mm telephoto. I wonder what its capabilities are in the hands of a real photographer? 🤔
Please don't answer if you are a Flerf and believe Banjo had Arcturus in focus. 🤣🤣🤣
The P900/P1000 are budget cameras with significant compromises that no professional photographer can accept. The detector, most important for image resolution, is only 1/4 the size of a full frame detector. And the lens itself is not fully multicoated on all surfaces, suffers from misalignment obvious in banjo's video, plus it lacks the aperture to increase resolution and time exposures in low light conditions. Sony simply picked a $1,000 target and built what they could for that low price.
An excellent Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM zoom lens costs $2,000, Sony's SEL200600G FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS Lens is another $2,000 and that is without the camera body. A professional Sony a7 III ILCE7M3/B Full-Frame Mirrorless Interchangeable-Lens Camera with 3-Inch LCD, Body Only,Base Configuration,Black, bare bones without the stuff you absolutely need to operate the thing is $2,000. If you want the A7 Siii with 160GB Memory Card, Sony MRWG2 CFexpress Type A/SD Memory Card Reader, Sony Z-Series NP-FZ100 7.2V 2,280mAh Rechargeable Battery Pack, Sony 128GB V60 UHS-II M-Series Memory Card, Koah Weatherproof Hard Case with Customizable Foam, Koah PRO Pre-Moistened Lens Cleaning Wipes (400-Pack), Koah PRO Rugged Memory Storage Carrying Case, and Koah PRO 2-in-1 Aluminum Shell OTG Dual Slot SD Card Reader you'll spend over $4,000 and that doesn't include any lenses.
So let's say $8,000 is the price of admission to quality super zoom camera use. When you look at what Sony was able to do for $1,000, it's a miracle. But it is not a miracle without significant sacrifices.
Here, from my friend, David Brewer, who owns the above equipment is what you get with 400mm focal length on the Moon in 4K resolution with equipment the P900/P1000 can't even get in the same galaxy for quality. czcams.com/video/_uZqNLp0jpk/video.html
@@RockinRobbins13 I believe that Wolfie 6020 has taken some photos of the moon with a Nikon P 900 which came out reasonably well, of course it helps, as Wolfie shows that with a decent tripod and manually focusing the thing you can get half decent results from it. Any camera is a compromise and the Nikon bridge cameras are built to a price and are meant for general amateur use… astrophotography wasn’t ever in the initial design brief. I suspect that trying to take a snap of the grandkids with a astrophotography set up would lead to equally silly results.
@@scrumpydrinker Well, if you wanted to snap a shot of the grandkids a mile away it might be pretty awesome!
I'm not saying the P900/P1000 aren't good cameras. I'm saying that they aren't cameras professionals would typically use.
After all, imagine taking a photo with a 400mm lens hand held. The P900/1000's lens is equivalent to 3,000mm and still lets you take hand held photograph in the daylight because the image stabilization is that good. Telling someone 20 years ago you would be able to do that would get you laughed at for sure.
@@RockinRobbins13 Fully agree mate, the Nikon is a competent enough camera and for its price and spot in the market it has a decent enough spec. However it is aimed at the buyer for who photography isn’t their major passion and is quite happy for the camera to take the strain. I get the impression that you are an enthusiastic photographer who is happiest exploring the possibilities of your equipment and so a Nikon p whatever isn’t that high on your wish list.
@@scrumpydrinker Actually quite the opposite. I've confined my photography to my Pixel 4a 5G cell phone. I primarily take astrophotos, and love to show people things they've never seen before. Google won't let me post my photo of the Cygnus arm of the Milky Way, a huge thing that fills my entire field of view and is entirely lost in the telescopic photos that dominate astrophotography.
Flat Urf presents to the world its first invention, The Banjo Telescope. It doesn't do nothing, but it's a marvel "to look at"...
On the p-1000 review the top one says, “….mind blowing reach that will let you zoom to the moon”.
Wow!
It’s sad that in 2022 people still don’t understand basic physics.
Pretty sure that’s deliberate deception regarding the tweet translation rather than stupidity, although being a liar and being stupid aren’t mutually exclusive states. Banjo’s Venn diagram of those states might be a perfect circle.
If UY Scuti was 100 miles away, we'd be in pretty deep sh!t. Or at the very least, a bit toasty.
Mr Sensible, you never fail to deliver. Brilliant breakdown and take down of another lying flerf.
Cheers!
Look up Le Pétomane
The incompetence of FLERFs is truly boundless.
Camera's have apertures, telescopes have lenses, camera's reduce the amount of light into the sensor, telescopes magnify the amount of light hitting the sensor, what part of this doesn't this guy get?, telescopes that look at stars don't even have lenses, they're called "Astronomical Interferometer's" or "Radio Telescopes" that pick up radio waves from planetary bodies, we can only "see" so much with light but that isn't the entire electromagnetic spectrum, we cannot, reliably determine the size, type or rotation of a star by just looking at it, it's too far away, Proxima Centauri is 40 TRILLION km away from us, we calculate the distance between us and the stars by measuring the "parallax", which is how much a star will shift in the nights sky between 4 to 6 months, this gives us a "base" which is the diameter of Earth's orbit, the two points form a triangle, with the shift of the star being the angle, using Hipparchus/ trigonometry we can calculate the height of the triangle which is the approximate distance to the star, stuff that gets taught in high school, simple stuff, like how to calculate the diameter of the Earth, idiots!
I share your indignation and I apologise for being picky, do you really mean "planetary bodies" in relation to "stars"?
@@marcosmith6613 A planetary body is anything that does not produce its own light, so planets, asteroids and comets, stars are just stars, I was referring to planets reflecting the light from their local star to gauge their composition but they also give off radio waves, we can use these to determine more about the planet, look for the "sounds of space", NASA uploads the electromagnetic sound of each planet picked up by radio telescopes here on Earth, my apologies for not clarifying, I get a little carried away with comments.
Well, at least Australia is close and local.
Proof? They have a spot in the Eurovision song contest.
If I worked at Nikon I would be very tempted to just string the flerfs along and confirm all their loonacy and then sell them a load of pointless accessories.
Blazing Saddles reference! :)
I didn't get a harrumph outta that guy!
Well done, good spot!
Ugh! This flerf Makes my head hurt.
Excellent Blazing Saddles reference there Mr. S!
Banjo, just like any Flerf, is so gullible that they take any crap they supports their presupposed conclusion as the Thruth.
And for example, also Globebusters claimed that photos of stars that were completely out of focus, show the real shape of stars. Anyone who knows how to use a camera can debunk their nonsense. But as we know, their followers have no idea.
@@mikep9604 They might have missed that you have 2 focal "points" on any device to see their out of focus "real" star. Contrary to only 1 point that is in actual focus.
I guess that's settled then. 1984 was a biography, not a work of fiction...
No, it was an astronomical text book!
"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition".....
Using FE Banjo (insert country of choice here)'s logic, I have developed a lens which we have lost the ability to make - a pin-hole lens. I did it using a body cap, tin foil, and some sticky back plastic. Do I get my Blue Peter badge now?
You can with telescopes see the disk of stars contrary to what you stated at 5:30 this is stars other than out the sun that is trivial to see as a disk. Look at the Wikipedia article "List of stars with resolved images" where there is an incomplete list of stars that has been observed as more than single dots. It is not in the resolution of that illustration that is shown but it is possible to do
Yes but have a look at the equipment necessary to resolve them. Not a Nikon in sight
Disks of stars have not been seen with single telescopes' direct vision but using interferometry and amalgamating the information of several telescopes at once. What you get is not a photograph but a diagram/graph.
and look at that list about the equipment used to resolve those images. it's some very big very expensive iron.
That 1984 had me howling as soon as it showed. No common sense or due diligence at all from FEB.
"I can't read French, but this is more or less the translation" - the only part that didn't get lost in translation is "160 km".
Since Mr. Fournier is a native French speaker, it is obvious that he's #GottaLieToFlerf
When flerfs say things are close, shouldn't they be able to take the short drive and be directly under them?
what a great lifestyle and worldview: you can make up what ever you want, believe it to be fact and everyone else is wrong.
i really hope, one day i could evolve up to that level
That needs to be put on a t-shirt...
"They're too stupid for a P900"
Wow. Flerftopia never ceases to amaze. 100 miles, now?
The sky is falling... the sky is fallling!!!
I bet the marketing folks at Nikon cringe at every mention of their products.
Well, if the bloke who works in Nikon's social media department says, it must be true.
Also, what's "20x maximum"? 20x what? 20x 16mm? 20x 300mm? 20x 600mm? 20x what, Banjo? 20x what?
20x8/1(2(squared)), cos you know, a calculation that is parabolic used to argue a spherical result on a flat plane an all that .....
Nice Blazing Saddles reference... "And they are so dumb"
1:46 oh look, a Flat Earther misrepresenting a quote, I am shocked.
O’Brien wasn’t just demonstrating the concept of doublethink, but also the degree to which the Party controls information.
Banjo taking that quote out of context and believing it without a shred of critical thought is the greatest irony I can think of.
He should get a woofer to go with that tweeter.
Wow, how does that guy make it through a day without help.
What makes you so sure he has no help???
"you got a fuzzy, unfocused blob, didnt you?"
well, that's a bit of a personal question, also irrelevant to the topic we were discussing, but anyhow...
_~standing ovation~_
What a closing! Brilliant, Mr. S! Simply brilliant!
👏🏾👏👏🏻👏🏽👏🏿👏🏽👏👏🏻👏🏿👏🏽👏🏿👏🏻👏🏾👏🏻👏🏿
If stars were that close, the Doppler shift would be infinitesimal. Sometimes it is enough to shift light from visible to infrared. Unfortunately I doubt many flat earthers understand Doppler shift.
However parallax (assuming the stars aren't stuck to the dome/firmament/celestial sphere) would be enormous. Taking two photos only a minute or so apart would provide a 3D image that would make working out the distance to the stars by triangulation a doddle.
As I'm french, read the original tweet wasn't hard at all... I still can't stop laughing 😂😂😂
Mr S. You saved yourself there. It is a Nikon camera - not Naikon! Don't let Banjo boy (or Paul Simon) tell you otherwise.
I know, I was all over the place with that! :-)