By the way, NASA is a whole bunch of experts. Not just one guy, they're a whole team of experts. They are really good at what they do; so if you saying they're wrong then there's something wrong with you. 😉
I forgot this was a quote when I first read it. I thought you were being a pro-NASA radical, who thinks they somehow are incapable of error. I almost replied with examples of their fallibility. Glad I decided not to, now. Lol
let's please remember the 3 different (some say contradicting too) properties of optical zoom according to flerfs: 1. bring boats back up 2. push mountains down 3. does nothing at all "because it's zooming"
Funny how he completely ignored the difference in height of the tall grass relative to the girl in the photo, which alone proves they were taken at different heights.
Nah! The grass grew really quickly due to lens compression. If you just zoom out again it will be nicely cut again. They use this method on all golf courses
@@cambridgemart2075 I have. He was a good dog, smart too. While he seemed to enjoy the company of us humans, he was not in need of our constant petting.
It's comical how often flat earthers "forget" their claims, or the original point of a discussion. They feel the need to "win" arguments by any means necessary. Surely, it was no coincidence that he messed up the top left photo.
Forgetting their claims makes sense when you realize that the majority of Flat Earth arguments are adhoc in order to counter whatever they need it to in the moment. It's the core reason why there isn't a complete Flat Earth model, because even if they have an explanation for how individual phenomena in our world would work on a Flat Earth, they can't create a model that makes it so all of those explanations work together, at the same time.
Flatzoid: "Varying focal length makes a big difference to the position of elements in an image, you should trust professionals" Also Flatzoid: Accepts a challenge from a professional to compare four images with greatly varying focal length and cant tell them apart, to the point where he doesn't even notice any difference whatsoever between at least two of them. He will claim the win here, for no reason other than he can't admit when he's wrong, and oh boy is he wrong.
"to the point where he doesn't even notice any difference whatsoever between at least two of them" And straight-up IMAGINES differences between two copies of the same photo, if I'm understanding right.
Wait a minute. Don't flerfs keep telling us that a longer focal length brings a ship in the distance up into view? But at the same time the longer focal length pushes distant subjects down into invisibility?
Clearly the lens knows the difference between a mountain and a ship. Even if you get an 100 year old lens it still has the knowledge of determining what is a ship and what is mountain. Amazing isn't it
Well spotted! Haven't thought of it, it nullifies both claims instantly. But then - flerfism is not about logic or reason. I still don't understand what it is about, though …
and as I posted elsewhere - why always 'down'? Whats special about the bottom of the frame. If we rotate the camera around 180 degrees so it's upside down, surely the 'movement' due to focal length then pushes it the other way??
I consider myself a reasonable person, but I really have a hard time wrapping my head around why people like Flatzoid are standing themselves in the way of learning. It almost seems that they predetermined they are gonna win every challenge, or that everything they come up with will be correct and needs to be defended, no matter the amount of nonsense it contains. Can they really not just admit that they are wrong sometimes?
For some of them it's a deep seated hatred of anybody that's smarter than they are. You can hear it in the way they talk about higher education being for weak minded lefty soyboys. For Fartzoid, it's an immature refusal to admit to being wrong because he is a bully, and to admit a mistake is to lose power over your opponent. Listen to him debate and see how long it takes for him to resort to insults and attempts to ridicule. he knows that he's wrong, but if he calls you a silly name, then he wins because who would listen to somebody like you?
It's the Dunning-Kruger effect at display. He learned a little bit of photography, and thinks he's mastered it because he knows so little about it that he's unable to see how much more there is to learn.
At this point, I'm convince that Flatzoid is just saying words to keep his listeners engaged, but hasn't got a clue what he's actually hearing or saying. The lights are on, but no one is home. Keep on humiliating him, Dave. You do far more work than the average flat earther is willing to do.
@@IrishStoneRath He does streams, you can see donation bars in the bottom of a few of the clips. Wouldn't be surprised if there's some MLM style crap mixed in too.
The annoying thing is it doesn't matter how much you corner him with his own arguments, he'll just use a combination of cherry picking, goal post moving, misrepresentation, straw manning and ultimately name calling to just declare a win anyways.
Your list is incomplete. He's demonstrated several other fallacies also, and he absolutely does not leave name calling as a last resort - often using it before he even hears what he claims to refute.
Here’s the real problem with Flatzoid’s assertion: Longer focal length is zooming. And Flatzoid is asserting zooming in causes background to get lower. What happened to zooming in brings ships back into view? By his logic zooming in causes ships to disappear not bringing them back.
Why should he. He's just catering to his audience. There's rarely a way to be sure if a FLERF beliefs what they are spouting out or just putting up a show for the money.
Bigger weirdos keep giving him money for being wrong. That's incentive to not concede any ground, even if he knows he's wrong. If I were him, I might ignore debunkers like Dave, to give the impression that I am not being dunked on weekly, but, Flatzoid is indeed a weird guy.
@@xczechr Exactly. He's the poster child for cognitive dissonance. He thinks everything must support his conclusion, so he just nods along with whatever source he's currently reading/watching. Whenever he encounters something that directly contradicts a specific claim he's made, he just hand-waves it away and says it supports his conclusion anyway.
Is flatzoid confusing zoom with a motion picture dolly zoom? That’s the shot in movies in which the background recedes as the person in the foreground gets closer. Jaws probably has the most famous example. Which is done by moving the camera physically closer while simultaneously zooming out. I betcha flatzoid has that on the brain as he barks “zoom!” in that clip at the end. Edit: still doesn’t make mountains disappear though.
It is not about Zoidman being 'confused. Zoidman is intellectually dishonest, lies and is a hypocrite. He is getting caught in his lies, so it is time to move the goal posts or try to 'invent' his own new terminology.
@@RideAcrossTheRiverso there aren't enough humans on earth to buy space X if each one gave you a penny, therefore you're not going to buy space X even if every flat earther gave you a dollar.
I love the casual ease with which Dave not only crushes the flerfers, but completely pulverises their arguments, melts them down, and remodels them into bulletproof evidence for round earth.
That is very typical of denialists of all stripes. I've seen it a multitude of times in other areas of science. I've seen many instances where someone will take something from the US CDC as being gospel and in practically the same virtual breath completely dismiss something else from the CDC site a being wrong and/or evidence that everyone at the CDC is a liar or incompetent. "Doing your own reaearch" to someone like Flatzoid means seeking anything that supports your existing biases and rejecting anything that doesn't.
Flatzoid is unable to ever admit when he is wrong. I have lost track of the number of times I've seen him claim that A is true, then have someone go through and systematically show why actually B is true, only to turn round and claim that he was saying that B was true all along, and that the person who showed his original assertion to be wrong has actually proven him right. He will sit there, listening to all the reasons he is wrong, smugly smiling along and then claim that every word said magically proves his completely opposite assertion correct. He cannot accept that he is ever wrong, so in his mind he never is. He is genuinely delusional.
Yeah it used to be fun to watch but with his arrogant WHOOPSIEs and UH OHs it's torture. But he did admit to being wrong a week or so ago. Oakley got on his show and corrected him on Coriolis or something so flatzoid actually said he got something wrong. Imagine that, being corrected by Oakley and accepting such correction.
...It's a classic trait of coming from being an Oakley disciple. Despite not having any professional time spent in real world situations with a particular subject of science, after talking about something for a few days, they are all of a sudden experts. ...Oakley, Zoidman, none of them, have ever actually successfully completed Celestial Navigation with a real Sextant, getting a real accurate fix, on a real ship/boat, on the real ocean. But yet, they think they are experts. ...When real world experts, with years and years of experience, point out their incorrect claims, they remain in delusion.
Well that's another point that I didn't even highlight here, if the optics pushed the background towards the bottom of the sensor then turning the camera upside down should raise the background up 🤦🏻♂️
Just curious, but if the focal length supposedly makes the mountain drop down, how does the lens know which direction is "down"? If that was the case and you turned the lens upside-down, wouldn't that make the mountains move up? I don't even understand how that would work.
Was gonna say the same thing. A lens is completely rotationally symetrical! Any effect it has on an image is the same up, down, left, right. How did he come to this stupid idea that increasing focal lengths pushes backgrounds down in the first place??? If that were true literally any video in which the camera zooms in would show the background moving down! What a complete numpty!
I mean, 'down' has to be an absolute direction, depending on your flavor of flerf. Seems like that might have *some* effect, but they'd need to show math demonstrating they understand how it works for anything to be admissible.
It's the same reason why the 'stuff falls because of density and bouyancy' BS doesn't work lol. "Ok. So why does it fall toward the ground and not start sliding left or right or up when those are less dense than the object?"
I commented something like this under the other video, but I just wanted to repeat it: If I get what Fartzoid's been saying correctly, when you take a picture of something in front of a distant mountain, changing the focal length of the camera's optics will make the mountain appear taller or shorter in frame, depending on the focal length. Now, all Fartzoid has to do is to grab a camera, two lenses, a tripod and hike out to ... well... literally any place on earth with a mountain, tower or whatever in the distance, set up the tripod and make two images with two vastly different lenses. One image should have the distant object in the background appear much smaller than in the other. And for reference, he can use a fixed object (like a pole, bench, tree or whatever) in the foreground. It's quite literally a matter of an hour, tops, to produce those two images to prove his point. It's all he'd have to do, to prove his point. _Yet he doesn't._ Cause he's an idiot. Or lazy. *Or both.*
@@RoundBallDefender Well, I do believe the guy genuinely believes the nonsense that he's spewing, he's perfectly certain that his nonsense is absolute truth... but I could be wrong and he's actually dishonest enough to make a claim that he knows is bullshit.
Couldn't help but notice a few telltale habits of Flatzoid. Things you only see in a very select group of people. When using Photography Online as a source that agreed with him, Flatzoid said that they were experts and knew what they were doing. But he didn't just praise them. He put them on an untouchable pedestal. "They are _really_ good at what they do, so if you're saying they're wrong, then there's something wrong with _you."_ This sort of "the people who agree with me are unquestionably brilliant and accurate, how dare you say otherwise" comment is pretty standard narcissistic behavior, and far less normal in well-adjusted rational thinkers. It's a tactic used to bully naysayers into believing they have no real, legitimate criticism. "An expert said it, and you're not an expert, so you MUST be wrong because they CAN'T be." It's manipulation, intended for use on an emotional level rather than an evidentiary one. Experts are not some flawless, godlike entity that can do no wrong. They CAN make mistakes, and it's not fair to assume that they do everything perfectly the way Flatzoid does for this mountain-drop video. Even Dave, who's extremely solid in his photography knowledge, admits to a few mistakes of his own in this very video. And that's another important point: honest people admit when they were wrong. The entire point Dave was specifically debunking with this four-image test was dropped and ignored in favor of an "I win because there are tiny differences", despite his initial claim being _soundly_ refuted by even a cursory glance at the images. But he didn't admit to being wrong before and then restate his case in different terms. He just pretended the offending statement never happened. He refuses to acknowledge the win, because he thinks it makes him look weak. If he pretends he was _always_ talking about tiny differences, it gives off an "I was right all along" vibe to people not paying close enough attention, all while he's being steadily pushed back and forced to retreat with the goalposts in hand. Let me say this again: This is manipulation. This is the action of a person who places every scrap of their self-worth on how brilliant they APPEAR to be, and how many "bad guys" they can say they've conquered (whether they ever actually did or not). It is stock-standard, Narcissist 101 behavior, and should not be tolerated. I do wish to point out that this is not an actual diagnosis of any kind. I am not saying Flatzoid IS a narcissist, I am only saying that he is ACTING like one. These traits _can_ be seen in other people, even potentially those not part of the Dark Triad, given specific-enough circumstances. While I can't know anything with certainty, especially from my limited knowledge of him, it is at least clear that he has developed dangerous traits. Traits great for impressing a crowd of loyal onlookers, and atrocious for seeking real truth in the world. Don't be like Flatzoid. And definitely don't follow people who act as he does. It's a trap that can consume your entire life if not caught in time. Such is the strength of what, to us, appears as nothing more than petulant and downright childish behavior.
@@DS127 Do you not? I kinda assumed that's what that was short for. You can certainly _act_ like one without actually being one. But that's not the distinction you're referring to? What is "a narcissist", the way you say it? You have me curious.
@@riluna3695 Some secondary definitions of "narcissism" do show it is sometimes used to mean narcissistic personality disorder. A "narcissist" is defined as "someone who [insert definition of narcissism]". Merriam-Webster: "[...] excessive love and admiration for oneself and especially one's own appearance. It can also refer to a mental disorder, a sexual desire, or a psychoanalytic concept." Oxford English Dictionary: "The earliest known use of the noun narcissism is in the 1820s." Cambridge Dictionary: "too much interest in and admiration for your own physical appearance and/or your own abilities" Wiki: "[...] extreme forms, observable particularly in people who are excessively self-absorbed, or who have a mental illness like narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), where the narcissistic tendency has become pathological. [...] The term narcissism comes from [the myth of], Narcissus, who spurns the advances of many potential lovers. When Narcissus rejects the nymph Echo, who was cursed to only echo the sounds that others made, the gods punish Narcissus by making him fall in love with his own reflection in a pool of water. When Narcissus discovers that the object of his love cannot love him back, he slowly pines away and dies."
As the great James Randi always pointed out in his psychic debunks, getting 50% right is no better than what you can achieve by random chance. He'd do just as well answering based on a coin toss. Which could also be said about his experimental methods.
Dave _always_ puts more effort into his videos that Failzoid ever puts into his own rubbish. That is why I love Dave's work, and think Failzoid is a very bad joke.
Yeah, The only Effort they deserve is CZcams taking down their Channel & Life Banning them like Santosser, I think it was more for Santosser's Behaviour but all Flat Earth 🐮💩 deserve the same.
It's his arrogance. I mean who is he appealing to? Himself. 99.9% of people don't understand photography much beyond when and when not to use a flash, almost no one understands what he's saying in this video, so who is he appealing to exactly?
@@A_Stereotypical_Guy Yeah, 99.9% of average intelligence people don't know when to use a flash which is why cameras have Auto, but his audience aren't even anywhere near that level of intelligence, for them "Flash" photography is what they do before MassDebating each other.
Your dedication is astonishing All I can say is there is clearly no dipping of the background whatsoever. Everything is exactly where it is in every image besides minor moving objects on the lake or the clouds obviously
How to be always right: claiming A or NOT A. E.g: tomorrow it will rain or not rain. Or: the background will move or not move. The sentence is always true.
I've taken a few pictures at 600 mm over the last year and I happen to live in quite mountainous terrain. So just to be absolutely clear: No, zooming _does not_ change anything in your image apart from how large objects appear. That would require displacement, which a zoom does not provide. I have literally no idea how Flatzoid could claim any different; he could take any camera of his choosing and debunk anything he says with ease.
I’m not sure flatzoid even understood what he was hearing when he watched those videos. His response of nodding & agreeing is very similar to what I’ve always done when talking with someone when I don’t understand what they’re talking about, or when I’m sitting in class, listening to a physics lecture, finding myself completely lost🤣
This doesn't correlate with flerfs zooming in on ships to "bring them back over the horizon". Surely they would drop over the horizon even more if Flatzoid were ever right about anything.
Yep. Nothing like a belief which relies on two mutually contradictory arguments! I came across the same thing with the Gavin Menzies book "1421 the year the Chinese discovered the world". One piece of his evidence relies on sea levels being lower than they are today, and another relies on sea levels being higher. Yet a third piece of evidence relies on sea levels being the same as they are today...
"Flatzoid's Compression" sounds like the name of a spinal column condition; hopefully it should be treatable with massive doses of factual information. One question, though: Why would Flatzoid think the compression would only occur in a downward direction? Wouldn't the compression effect he claims affect the image in all directions, centered at the middle of the view? If it's a lens effect, what happens when the camera is oriented at 90° or 180° to "down"?
I’m really really loved your explanation with the telescope and spotting scope. One thing I’d like to add… if the lenses are circular, they have rotational symmetry… so then where is this “down” bias coming from?!?
Obviously both the lens as well as the projection on the sensor "know" about relative density disequilibrium and thus also know where "down" is supposed to be ... So no, turning the camera upside down or at an 90° angle (or any angle in between) will not cause the background to drop to the side or upwards but always downwards relative to actual Earth within the picture. ~please let nobody take this serious~
The photon knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation.
It's clear to see in his photographs that not only the mountain, but the building, power pole, and the entire grass field beyond the first few feet have been purposely brought down behind the foreground by lowering the camera. They forgot their own sacred rule: "The horizon rises (or lowers) to eye level!"
Is it possible to use 2 tripods for the big lens - one for the camera and one for the lens, adjusted for height. Also, top left image - is Flatzoid throwing his hat in the race? He really wants that award. Edit: 😅I should've watched till the end.
Keep dunkin on em bro, you're doing humanity a service by calling out these dummys 👍 eventually they'll run out of shitty arguments and just yell, cry, and scream about how they're right. Some of them are already doing it 😂
just a suggestion, but you should make a reveal video at the same time as you make the challenge video, and then make it private/unlisted, that way when the time comes to do the reveal you have a time-stamped version of the video that shows you did have a predetermined result to help defuse accusations of changing the results to stymie the flat earthers. You can make the full debunk video after the challenge has been attempted, but reference the reveal and un-private it so that viewers can go to it and see what you had. maybe something like each photo, zoom them out, and then show their meta-data in sequence, no voice over no special effects required.
Lenses are mysterious, unpredictable creatures. Sometimes they bring things back up over the horizon. Sometimes they push things down over the horizon. Sometimes they do nothing at all to objects and the horizon. You never know what they'll do!
Amazing how "lens compression" has no effect on the horizontal and no effect on the vertical other than to fold out distant parts just above the horizon line.
The genuine hysterical truth that flerfs are so focused on their cherry-picking that they continually post their own debunks, saving us all the time and effort doing it.
I love your videos. You are probably the GOAT when it comes to debunking this madness. I love how even tempered you are. Suggestion: For those of us that own dogs that shed, we have to be careful what color t shirt we wear on camera. Hope you dont take this as a slight. Just offering a tip that might level up your game a bit.
If Dave is anything like myself and most other dog owners I know, you reach a point where, unless you're going out somewhere, you stop worrying about it and accept it. And buy a decent vacuum.
I used to hate that my dog shed. My dog is getting old. I will be sad when I stop finding his dog hair on everything and in everything. I am now somehow comforted when I am far from home and I find his hair in my luggage.
I appreciate your approach to debunking flat earth. You treat people with much more respect than do most other debunking channels. I think that’s the better approach to changing minds rather than simply hurling insults. Of course it’s a ridiculous thing to believe the earth is flat, but I think there are reasons people believe in flat earth that go beyond evidence, and making fun of them isn’t going to change their minds.
So tiny variations in photographs of varying focal lengths are not imperfections of camera geometry, but irrefutable proof of the earth being flat. Riiiight.... makes total sense.
I’m not a photographer, but I can clearly see a glaring problem with the two pictures of the girl. The 200mm shot is clearly taken closer to the ground because you can see two things happening. First, look at the plane of the grass. You can clearly see the grass taking up half the shot in the 12mm shot, yet only 1/4 of the 200mm shot. Also, the average height of the grass goes to her hips at 12mm but only to the bottom of her coat in the 200mm shot. Second, look at the height of the telephone pole in relationship to the mountains and also her elbow. It starts near her shoulder the mountains are below her elbow. In the 200mm shot, that same pole is now down by her hand which would now put the mountains probably below her coat. I have no idea how Flatzoid could go on about focal lengths when he can’t even spot problems that “normal” people can see.
Great video as usual Dave! The “top left” reference was gold! 😂 At the end, Flatzoid by accident agreed that it wouldn’t make any difference “because, you’re zooming in” on the video from the Slanted Lens, as if zooming in is not changing the focal length! Double fail, and goalpost moving! It’d be very funny, if instead of 12 frames on the new comparison challenge you had 11, but he might have been triggered by that number of frames then! 😂
Flatzoid probably will claim that the goalpost has moved because he used a different focal length. Great video @Dave McKeegan. Like you told me before, it turned out better than we hoped.
17:05 And shouldn't when they zoom in with their camera of choice Nikon P1000 "to bring boats back to view" an opposite thing happening when zooming in if this was the case? I mean make them disappear instead of "bringing them back to view"? Flath Earthers, never change.
@@bigsoda4276 no i get that, in our inertial reference frame we decide that down is towards the centre of the earth. My point is why would a lens makes things go "down" and not up or sideways? The lens doesn't care about our frame of reference! It's just another example of things being twisted to fit flerfers beliefs. Rule No.1 - gotta lie to flerf!
How is a lens supposed to "push down" objects in the background anyway? Optical theory and basic geometry tells us that moving the camera will change the relationship between objects in the scene because the viewing angles and sight lines have moved. This introduces parallax and perspective shifts. But if you just change the lens, and _don't_ move the camera, then none of the geometry of the scene has actually changed. The sight lines are the same, the perspective is the same, nothing has shifted to obscure any objects in the scene. How do they imagine that the sight lines to the mountains in the background have changed?
More likely explanation for the differences in the photos with the girl - for some inexpiable reason, the photographer knelt down for the one photo, whereas the others were taken while standing up, thus changing the perspective.
You mean, as they directly stated which Dave showed a screenshot of at 1:00? It's not inexplicable, for this style of shoot the reason is "felt like it".
Out of these 12 the only four I can guess which were taken first (not the focal length, I have no clue about that) are 9, 1, 7, and 4 and I can only tell that from the position of the birds on the water; I'd love to see Flatzoid try and say he knows which is which because of pixel differences despite the photos being taken over a period of time meaning they would not be a perfect match no matter what because of cloud cover and wildlife moving
I had a similar thought every time I heard them say "pixel perfect". You could use the same camera and lens, and the images taken over time won't be pixel identical. But what we do expect (which is actually Dave's argument) is that large objects (like mountains) won't have obvious vertical shifts due only on the lens used. If the only differences are few percent shifts in pixel brightness, and not tall objects appearing or disappearing, then they've already conceded that their central premise is wrong.
I had a conversation with a professional photographer who sounds just like this guy. He was telling me about how he was on a shoot for NatGeo or WSJ about the homeless, and he met this lady who was at her wits' end ... Her late husband was a Vietnam vet who lost both legs and an eye in action but was dishohorably discharged for drug abuse when he was denied medical benefits owing to a technicality and committed suicide, leaving her and her two kids (age 2 and 5) and herself, pregnant, on the streets, pleading for handouts. "That's heartbreaking," I nodded. "So, what did you give her?" He said, "Well, it was a little overcast so I gave her f3.5 for 1/30th of a second ..."
It would be cool if something like 3 of the 12 images were shot from exactly the same camera and lens with exactly the same settings but just a minute or so between each shot so they're not entirely identical.
I did something very similar to convince some actual photographers on how this worked, more than two decades ago. So many believe that "perspective" is related to something other than "point of view", and are often surprised to learn otherwise. But, hey, the photographers "got it".
You should turn the camera upside down. Imagine how much more of the earth you could see with a long focal length somehow pulling the objects up and into view! Or is the lens somehow working with the electrostatic mumbo jumbo of the earth to keep down in the right direction?
I’m still confused by what mechanism does flatzoid believe that the light from a distant mountain knows what focal length you are using; in order for it to no longer appear in the image cast on the camera sensor? Yet somehow in the 4 test images Dave presented. The light from the background has decided it’s going to ignore its previous behaviour of adjusting its path due to what focal length is used. So the background appears in exactly the same relative position to the foreground regardless of which focal length lens is used. Is every photon think just as it leaves the surface of the background. “I’m headed for a 150mm lens so I’m going to go in a straight line for about 900m then I’m going to bend my trajectory upwards over the top of the camera. Oh no! It’s globeearther Dave (in the pay of the only purveyors of science in history- NASA) McKeegan taking the photo. I’m going to travel straight into the lens ‘cos he’s making a video about this sort of thing.”
At 9m06s - today. FZ says that the horizon is the "apparent point where the sky and sea appear to meet" Well, in the picture, the edge of the notice board is the "apparent point" where the board and the water, or the tree line "appear to meet" I suggested this to him once before, but it passed him by ....
if I had time on my hands I might hazard a guess at the order the photos were taken in by the movement of the floats on the lake. but it would still be a random guess what order the lenses were swapped out in.
In the spirit of Christmas, I forward by detailed analysis of the amount of background reduced by the focal length used. My conclusions on the 12 images ... 12 - drummers drumming 11 - pipers piping 10 - lords a-leaping 9 - ladies dancing 8 - maids a-milking 7 - swans a-swimming 6 - geese a-laying 5 - golden rings 4 - calling birds 3 - french hens 2 - turtle doves and 1 - a partridge in a pear tree And that seems more logical that anything from Failzoid
Hi Dave, great video as always. Do you think you could provide direct downloads of each of the 12 images? I have some ideas for how to tell them apart, but CZcams's compression screws them up somewhat.
If your method of telling them apart relies on *that* much fidelity, then you aren't looking at the actual claim. Flatzoid claimed that so much variation in focal length would make a *huge* difference in what is visible in the background, not that there would be petty differences in pixels.
@@jursamaj Flatzoid's claim was already debunked by the original four images. Since it's impossible to tell the images apart from "background drop" (since it doesn't exist) I want to try using other methods such as compression artifacts, distortion, chromatic aberration, and edge sharpness.
The thing I love about this is that even if flatzoid (or anyone else) was able to tell what focal lengths the pictures were at, it wouldn’t matter. His original point was that the background moves “down” with longer focal lengths. The pictures clearly prove that wrong, and there’s nothing he can say to refute it. Of course he totally ignored that and just focused on trying to see if he could tell the difference between them lol
I think the issue here is that Flat Earthers are arguing there's some kind of up and down parallax effect when you zoom in on something from a distance. But this makes no sense when you think about it. What would cause this effect? Why does zooming in on something change the orientation of the composition?
For context, there are 24 orders for the pictures. 9 with 0 matches 8 with 1 match 6 with 2 matches 0 with 3 matches 1 with 4 matches So it's a 25% chance of getting exactly 2 correct by chance.
Dave’s videos are not only a stick in the wheel for the flers, but they are ALWAYS backed up by facts and demonstrations. I must also mention Martymer, who appeared just recently, addressing the stoopidities from the flatheads, and like Dave always back up his claims with facts and demonstrations. Scimandan has his style, but Dave and Martymer leaves nothing to discuss, unless anyone is eager du deny facts.
I am just getting started with learning photography. After this video, I feel like I understand focal length a lot better now. Thanks for that. Also, I love that the flat earther completely overlooked the fact that the background didn't dip down at all in any of the 4 photos. Awesome job, man. This whole thing completely debunks his argument.
It's a million times obvious in the right-side picture of the girl that the angle to the telephone pole is drastically different. Since this doof is paying so much attention to detail, why didn't he notice so much missing telephone pole?
Man, if it were me, I'd have taken 4 photos with the exact same lens but ever so slightly different settings and let flatzoid go on and on about which is which when they're all literally the exact same. Considering he already kinda did that to himself and still came to conclusions based on two of the images being accidentally the same, I'm a hundred percent sure he would have fell for it.
How I would like it if lotto numbers were as predictable as guys like Flatzoid. In the comments of the last video several people correctly predicted that if Flatzoid were to accept the challenge he would go for irrelevant pixel differences while completely ignoring his own original claim about a miraculously downward directed "drop in the background" for both the picture with the girl and - more importantly - the Blackpool Tower image. 🤣
1:16 This is not true completely. When a portrait is taken at many focal lengths, facial features are "compressed" or exaggerated... But this is for an up close subject and has the xamera moving back to compensate for the zoom of the focal length... It shouldn't change distant images.
I wonder why his first thought wasn't just that the photographer had to move further away from the model with the 200mm lens, and that he moved 'downslope' because the land wasn't level and thereby dropping the mountain out of sight below the new horizon. It's a bit weird.
G'day Rusty & Dave, The fact he also couldn't determine the Focal Lenth by "Height Of Background" as he claimed, but instead made his judgement based on "How Blurry the Background is" Totally Debunked himself by showing height of Background is not affected by Focal Length & the only thing he actually has is 🐮💩 & "NU-UHH!"
I don't know why i don't get notifications for your videos but they do show up in my feed thank the gods. 3:18 about time someone showed one of my inane comments.
Is it just me, or does Flatzoid's use of fancy grid lines around 5:51 make it abundantly clear that structures on the horizon are not moving up/down? Does that in itself not debunk the entirety of the theory?
This is a perfect test ! However, as the flat earther said (can't remember his name again 😅), "even if I'm wrong, I'm right, because...... reasons" 🤣🤣 So of course you'll never manage to convince him or anyone else who only seek to confirm his bias. But for anyone else who genuinelly looks for actual educational content based on facts and reproducible experiments, these videos are really excellent. Thanks PS : many so called "debunkers" would have a lot to learn from your videos instead of just mocking what they're trying to debunk. Because in doing so, I believe they are pretty much using the same way of making science as those they debunk..... "I'm right and you're wrong, but detailing why would take too much time and effort and I have 3 videos a week to publish"
By the way, NASA is a whole bunch of experts. Not just one guy, they're a whole team of experts. They are really good at what they do; so if you saying they're wrong then there's something wrong with you. 😉
🤣 Amazing!
I see what you did there😅
I forgot this was a quote when I first read it. I thought you were being a pro-NASA radical, who thinks they somehow are incapable of error. I almost replied with examples of their fallibility. Glad I decided not to, now. Lol
@@tristanridley1601 Nobody anywhere including NASA has said NASA is infallible.
Nice one
If flerfs didn't move the goalposts they wouldn't be flerfs.
Flerf goal posts have wheels for convenience.
@@ihcterra4625 But wheels are round...
I am sure it is much easier to move the goal posts on their flat earth, compared to our round one, they have no curve to get past afterall :P
Flat Earth Football Delivery Company™
We know how to move goalposts.
You gotta lie to flerfs.
let's please remember the 3 different (some say contradicting too) properties of optical zoom according to flerfs:
1. bring boats back up
2. push mountains down
3. does nothing at all "because it's zooming"
Funny how he completely ignored the difference in height of the tall grass relative to the girl in the photo, which alone proves they were taken at different heights.
Nah!
The grass grew really quickly due to lens compression.
If you just zoom out again it will be nicely cut again.
They use this method on all golf courses
Same with the height of the power pole in the background.
Please tell your dog we're all grateful for him supervising you making these very awesome videos. Much appreciated.
I think that is the most psychologically needy dog I have ever seen!
YES!!@@John.0z
I have NEVER seen a dog more conform to all the forces exerted on it than Dave McKeegan's dog.@@John.0z
@@John.0z You should meet a Samoyed then!
@@cambridgemart2075 I have. He was a good dog, smart too. While he seemed to enjoy the company of us humans, he was not in need of our constant petting.
It's comical how often flat earthers "forget" their claims, or the original point of a discussion. They feel the need to "win" arguments by any means necessary.
Surely, it was no coincidence that he messed up the top left photo.
Forgetting their claims makes sense when you realize that the majority of Flat Earth arguments are adhoc in order to counter whatever they need it to in the moment. It's the core reason why there isn't a complete Flat Earth model, because even if they have an explanation for how individual phenomena in our world would work on a Flat Earth, they can't create a model that makes it so all of those explanations work together, at the same time.
Narcissism.
"Clarification is not to make oneself clear. It is to put oneself IN the clear! Hm-hm!"
They believe that as long as they keep talking and can bring up something to babble about, they are not defeated.
Flat Earthers: MAGA by another name...
I gotta feel badly for Photography Online getting dragged into the nonsense of flerf world.
To be fair, it's a great opportunity for photographers to nerd out about their area of expertise that would normally cause people to glaze over
Flatzoid: "Varying focal length makes a big difference to the position of elements in an image, you should trust professionals"
Also Flatzoid: Accepts a challenge from a professional to compare four images with greatly varying focal length and cant tell them apart, to the point where he doesn't even notice any difference whatsoever between at least two of them.
He will claim the win here, for no reason other than he can't admit when he's wrong, and oh boy is he wrong.
"to the point where he doesn't even notice any difference whatsoever between at least two of them"
And straight-up IMAGINES differences between two copies of the same photo, if I'm understanding right.
@@NeutralDrow You're understanding it right, the guy blatantly just makes stuff up as he goes along
And also Flatzoid: Scientists? Professionals? Don't trust them! Argument from authority!
Ooh... Wait...
A couple of pixels versus a whole mountain disappearing. Flstzoid loses that one by a country mile
Mental incapacity and mental illness. Its the only explanation for these flatties.
Wait a minute. Don't flerfs keep telling us that a longer focal length brings a ship in the distance up into view? But at the same time the longer focal length pushes distant subjects down into invisibility?
Flerfs only deal with one thing at a time, coherency with other claims is not required.
Clearly the lens knows the difference between a mountain and a ship.
Even if you get an 100 year old lens it still has the knowledge of determining what is a ship and what is mountain.
Amazing isn't it
Well spotted! Haven't thought of it, it nullifies both claims instantly. But then - flerfism is not about logic or reason. I still don't understand what it is about, though …
and as I posted elsewhere - why always 'down'? Whats special about the bottom of the frame. If we rotate the camera around 180 degrees so it's upside down, surely the 'movement' due to focal length then pushes it the other way??
No. They keep telling you you're moving at 1.3 million miles an hour in 5 different directions😂
Flatzoid, because sovereign citizens need someone to call stupid too.
I consider myself a reasonable person, but I really have a hard time wrapping my head around why people like Flatzoid are standing themselves in the way of learning. It almost seems that they predetermined they are gonna win every challenge, or that everything they come up with will be correct and needs to be defended, no matter the amount of nonsense it contains. Can they really not just admit that they are wrong sometimes?
For some of them it's a deep seated hatred of anybody that's smarter than they are. You can hear it in the way they talk about higher education being for weak minded lefty soyboys. For Fartzoid, it's an immature refusal to admit to being wrong because he is a bully, and to admit a mistake is to lose power over your opponent. Listen to him debate and see how long it takes for him to resort to insults and attempts to ridicule. he knows that he's wrong, but if he calls you a silly name, then he wins because who would listen to somebody like you?
These people think that Dunning Kruger...
... is going to use his scissor gloves to kill them in their dreams.
I think they're grifters and know they're full of shit tbh
No, they cannot. Or else, they wouldn't be flerfers. That's the same thing as asking if an egg can come without yolk sometimes.
It's the Dunning-Kruger effect at display. He learned a little bit of photography, and thinks he's mastered it because he knows so little about it that he's unable to see how much more there is to learn.
At this point, I'm convince that Flatzoid is just saying words to keep his listeners engaged, but hasn't got a clue what he's actually hearing or saying. The lights are on, but no one is home. Keep on humiliating him, Dave. You do far more work than the average flat earther is willing to do.
I'm not sure that the lights are on. But of course his motive is clicks/likes/subscriptions. That's the whole purpose.
Failzoid like Witless have a serious case of Verbal Diarrhoea.
He's a grifter. He doesn't care what he says as long as money keeps coming in.
@@IrishStoneRath He does streams, you can see donation bars in the bottom of a few of the clips. Wouldn't be surprised if there's some MLM style crap mixed in too.
@@IrishStoneRath
He lives in South Aftica, that's a lot of money for him.
*"He ended up at top left."*
That really gave me a laugh. He was even more 'spot on' than what he intended.
The annoying thing is it doesn't matter how much you corner him with his own arguments, he'll just use a combination of cherry picking, goal post moving, misrepresentation, straw manning and ultimately name calling to just declare a win anyways.
A broken analog clock is correct twice a day. :)
Your list is incomplete. He's demonstrated several other fallacies also, and he absolutely does not leave name calling as a last resort - often using it before he even hears what he claims to refute.
You can always tell when flatzoid is about to debunk himself, he opens his mouth!
Sorry, sorry, derp derp derp....
Here’s the real problem with Flatzoid’s assertion:
Longer focal length is zooming. And Flatzoid is asserting zooming in causes background to get lower. What happened to zooming in brings ships back into view? By his logic zooming in causes ships to disappear not bringing them back.
Flatzoid is such a weird guy. Its so strange that he never thinks that maybe, just maybe, he is wrong on this topic.
Why should he. He's just catering to his audience. There's rarely a way to be sure if a FLERF beliefs what they are spouting out or just putting up a show for the money.
It's what happens when one starts with a conclusion and then looks for evidence to support it.
That is the confidence of the truly ignorance.
Bigger weirdos keep giving him money for being wrong. That's incentive to not concede any ground, even if he knows he's wrong. If I were him, I might ignore debunkers like Dave, to give the impression that I am not being dunked on weekly, but, Flatzoid is indeed a weird guy.
@@xczechr Exactly. He's the poster child for cognitive dissonance. He thinks everything must support his conclusion, so he just nods along with whatever source he's currently reading/watching. Whenever he encounters something that directly contradicts a specific claim he's made, he just hand-waves it away and says it supports his conclusion anyway.
Is flatzoid confusing zoom with a motion picture dolly zoom? That’s the shot in movies in which the background recedes as the person in the foreground gets closer. Jaws probably has the most famous example. Which is done by moving the camera physically closer while simultaneously zooming out. I betcha flatzoid has that on the brain as he barks “zoom!” in that clip at the end.
Edit: still doesn’t make mountains disappear though.
It is not about Zoidman being 'confused. Zoidman is intellectually dishonest, lies and is a hypocrite. He is getting caught in his lies, so it is time to move the goal posts or try to 'invent' his own new terminology.
If i got a penny everytime a flerf debunks his own argument i'd be able to buy SpaceX
SpaceX is worth only about $12 billion.
You'd still never go to space
Just ask elon!
@@RideAcrossTheRiverso there aren't enough humans on earth to buy space X if each one gave you a penny, therefore you're not going to buy space X even if every flat earther gave you a dollar.
@@SineN0mine3 What a narrow view you have. Who funds NASA?
Honestly, given his pixel by pixel comparison last time, I'm afraid those bouys moving between shots are going to have him bogged down for days.
Flatzoid: yeah the mountains disappear
Also Flatzoid: see, a pixel disappeared, I win
I love the casual ease with which Dave not only crushes the flerfers, but completely pulverises their arguments, melts them down, and remodels them into bulletproof evidence for round earth.
BRILLIANT example with the spotter scope. That deserves a short of its own or something, because it is a complete debunk in a nice tidy package.
That moment made me smile. It was the grace note this video didn’t need but I’m glad it’s there.
No! Nothing deserves a Short! Not even flatzoid! You monster, you! :P
@@EvenTheDogAgrees not a fan of Shorts, eh? I guess in this case, the dog disagrees.
@@michaelburke4048 🤣
so funny how he decides to trust one "group of professionals" and not a way bigger "group" (nasa)
That is very typical of denialists of all stripes. I've seen it a multitude of times in other areas of science. I've seen many instances where someone will take something from the US CDC as being gospel and in practically the same virtual breath completely dismiss something else from the CDC site a being wrong and/or evidence that everyone at the CDC is a liar or incompetent. "Doing your own reaearch" to someone like Flatzoid means seeking anything that supports your existing biases and rejecting anything that doesn't.
Flatzoid is unable to ever admit when he is wrong. I have lost track of the number of times I've seen him claim that A is true, then have someone go through and systematically show why actually B is true, only to turn round and claim that he was saying that B was true all along, and that the person who showed his original assertion to be wrong has actually proven him right. He will sit there, listening to all the reasons he is wrong, smugly smiling along and then claim that every word said magically proves his completely opposite assertion correct. He cannot accept that he is ever wrong, so in his mind he never is. He is genuinely delusional.
Yeah it used to be fun to watch but with his arrogant WHOOPSIEs and UH OHs it's torture. But he did admit to being wrong a week or so ago. Oakley got on his show and corrected him on Coriolis or something so flatzoid actually said he got something wrong. Imagine that, being corrected by Oakley and accepting such correction.
What is worse he outright lies
It's a common affliction among flat earthers.
@@khandimahn9687 It's actually a requirement for flerfs
...It's a classic trait of coming from being an Oakley disciple. Despite not having any professional time spent in real world situations with a particular subject of science, after talking about something for a few days, they are all of a sudden experts.
...Oakley, Zoidman, none of them, have ever actually successfully completed Celestial Navigation with a real Sextant, getting a real accurate fix, on a real ship/boat, on the real ocean. But yet, they think they are experts.
...When real world experts, with years and years of experience, point out their incorrect claims, they remain in delusion.
"...background pushed down." Why down? Why not up, or sideways? What is down?
Down is towards lower density of course. Which lenses can detect using magic.
Well that's another point that I didn't even highlight here, if the optics pushed the background towards the bottom of the sensor then turning the camera upside down should raise the background up 🤦🏻♂️
This, right here. To flerfs, it's always down. Nobody knows why
Because of DENSITY. Did you know helium balloon🤣
@@BlackFeatherization density is causing lenses to bring mountains down? Lol
It's brave as a non-photographer to start debating about focal lengths with a photographer.
They argue with Navigators how navigation works, Pilots how flying works, And electronics engineers how lasers work! Dunning Kruger.
They would also argue with linguists about language, theologians about religion, and seismologists about earthquakes.
"brave" is one word for it...
@@mjjoe76 indeed they do.
@@mjjoe76They actually do and have already interacted with PhD Tony on the subject of earthquake wave propagation.
Just curious, but if the focal length supposedly makes the mountain drop down, how does the lens know which direction is "down"? If that was the case and you turned the lens upside-down, wouldn't that make the mountains move up? I don't even understand how that would work.
Lol
Perspective. It's always perspective. 🤷♂️
Was gonna say the same thing. A lens is completely rotationally symetrical! Any effect it has on an image is the same up, down, left, right. How did he come to this stupid idea that increasing focal lengths pushes backgrounds down in the first place??? If that were true literally any video in which the camera zooms in would show the background moving down! What a complete numpty!
I mean, 'down' has to be an absolute direction, depending on your flavor of flerf. Seems like that might have *some* effect, but they'd need to show math demonstrating they understand how it works for anything to be admissible.
It's the same reason why the 'stuff falls because of density and bouyancy' BS doesn't work lol. "Ok. So why does it fall toward the ground and not start sliding left or right or up when those are less dense than the object?"
The patience it must take to literally argue with a crazy person is extraordinary.
I commented something like this under the other video, but I just wanted to repeat it:
If I get what Fartzoid's been saying correctly, when you take a picture of something in front of a distant mountain, changing the focal length of the camera's optics will make the mountain appear taller or shorter in frame, depending on the focal length.
Now, all Fartzoid has to do is to grab a camera, two lenses, a tripod and hike out to ... well... literally any place on earth with a mountain, tower or whatever in the distance, set up the tripod and make two images with two vastly different lenses.
One image should have the distant object in the background appear much smaller than in the other. And for reference, he can use a fixed object (like a pole, bench, tree or whatever) in the foreground.
It's quite literally a matter of an hour, tops, to produce those two images to prove his point. It's all he'd have to do, to prove his point.
_Yet he doesn't._
Cause he's an idiot.
Or lazy.
*Or both.*
I don’t think it’s because he’s lazy or an idiot. It’s specifically because it would prove him wrong.
@@RoundBallDefender It could be a bit of all three.
@@Tsudico oh he’s definitely an Id10T, and hes completely lazy. That’s true if he does or doesn’t go take his own photographs.
@@RoundBallDefender Well, I do believe the guy genuinely believes the nonsense that he's spewing, he's perfectly certain that his nonsense is absolute truth... but I could be wrong and he's actually dishonest enough to make a claim that he knows is bullshit.
He's a lazy, narcissistic grifter. That's why. He *knows* he's wrong, but because of the money, he spouts whatever BS keeps it coming.
Couldn't help but notice a few telltale habits of Flatzoid. Things you only see in a very select group of people.
When using Photography Online as a source that agreed with him, Flatzoid said that they were experts and knew what they were doing. But he didn't just praise them. He put them on an untouchable pedestal. "They are _really_ good at what they do, so if you're saying they're wrong, then there's something wrong with _you."_
This sort of "the people who agree with me are unquestionably brilliant and accurate, how dare you say otherwise" comment is pretty standard narcissistic behavior, and far less normal in well-adjusted rational thinkers. It's a tactic used to bully naysayers into believing they have no real, legitimate criticism. "An expert said it, and you're not an expert, so you MUST be wrong because they CAN'T be." It's manipulation, intended for use on an emotional level rather than an evidentiary one. Experts are not some flawless, godlike entity that can do no wrong. They CAN make mistakes, and it's not fair to assume that they do everything perfectly the way Flatzoid does for this mountain-drop video. Even Dave, who's extremely solid in his photography knowledge, admits to a few mistakes of his own in this very video.
And that's another important point: honest people admit when they were wrong. The entire point Dave was specifically debunking with this four-image test was dropped and ignored in favor of an "I win because there are tiny differences", despite his initial claim being _soundly_ refuted by even a cursory glance at the images. But he didn't admit to being wrong before and then restate his case in different terms. He just pretended the offending statement never happened. He refuses to acknowledge the win, because he thinks it makes him look weak. If he pretends he was _always_ talking about tiny differences, it gives off an "I was right all along" vibe to people not paying close enough attention, all while he's being steadily pushed back and forced to retreat with the goalposts in hand.
Let me say this again: This is manipulation. This is the action of a person who places every scrap of their self-worth on how brilliant they APPEAR to be, and how many "bad guys" they can say they've conquered (whether they ever actually did or not). It is stock-standard, Narcissist 101 behavior, and should not be tolerated.
I do wish to point out that this is not an actual diagnosis of any kind. I am not saying Flatzoid IS a narcissist, I am only saying that he is ACTING like one. These traits _can_ be seen in other people, even potentially those not part of the Dark Triad, given specific-enough circumstances. While I can't know anything with certainty, especially from my limited knowledge of him, it is at least clear that he has developed dangerous traits. Traits great for impressing a crowd of loyal onlookers, and atrocious for seeking real truth in the world.
Don't be like Flatzoid. And definitely don't follow people who act as he does. It's a trap that can consume your entire life if not caught in time. Such is the strength of what, to us, appears as nothing more than petulant and downright childish behavior.
Well written!! 👏👏
I agree with @YouthEnergy, but you don't don't need to have narcissistic personality disorder to be a narcissist.
@@DS127 Do you not? I kinda assumed that's what that was short for. You can certainly _act_ like one without actually being one. But that's not the distinction you're referring to? What is "a narcissist", the way you say it? You have me curious.
@@riluna3695 Some secondary definitions of "narcissism" do show it is sometimes used to mean narcissistic personality disorder. A "narcissist" is defined as "someone who [insert definition of narcissism]".
Merriam-Webster: "[...] excessive love and admiration for oneself and especially one's own appearance. It can also refer to a mental disorder, a sexual desire, or a psychoanalytic concept."
Oxford English Dictionary: "The earliest known use of the noun narcissism is in the 1820s."
Cambridge Dictionary: "too much interest in and admiration for your own physical appearance and/or your own abilities"
Wiki: "[...] extreme forms, observable particularly in people who are excessively self-absorbed, or who have a mental illness like narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), where the narcissistic tendency has become pathological. [...] The term narcissism comes from [the myth of], Narcissus, who spurns the advances of many potential lovers. When Narcissus rejects the nymph Echo, who was cursed to only echo the sounds that others made, the gods punish Narcissus by making him fall in love with his own reflection in a pool of water. When Narcissus discovers that the object of his love cannot love him back, he slowly pines away and dies."
Beautiful comment. This should be pinned.
As the great James Randi always pointed out in his psychic debunks, getting 50% right is no better than what you can achieve by random chance. He'd do just as well answering based on a coin toss. Which could also be said about his experimental methods.
That really depends on the number of options. Given two options, sure. Given twenty, if someone manages 50%, then it is a miracle.
You put more effort into that video than Flatzoid really deserves
Dave _always_ puts more effort into his videos that Failzoid ever puts into his own rubbish.
That is why I love Dave's work, and think Failzoid is a very bad joke.
Yeah,
The only Effort they deserve is CZcams taking down their Channel & Life Banning them like Santosser,
I think it was more for Santosser's Behaviour but all Flat Earth 🐮💩 deserve the same.
It's his arrogance. I mean who is he appealing to? Himself. 99.9% of people don't understand photography much beyond when and when not to use a flash, almost no one understands what he's saying in this video, so who is he appealing to exactly?
@@A_Stereotypical_Guy Yeah, 99.9% of average intelligence people don't know when to use a flash which is why cameras have Auto,
but his audience aren't even anywhere near that level of intelligence, for them "Flash" photography is what they do before MassDebating each other.
Your dedication is astonishing
All I can say is there is clearly no dipping of the background whatsoever. Everything is exactly where it is in every image besides minor moving objects on the lake or the clouds obviously
How to be always right: claiming A or NOT A.
E.g: tomorrow it will rain or not rain.
Or: the background will move or not move.
The sentence is always true.
I've taken a few pictures at 600 mm over the last year and I happen to live in quite mountainous terrain.
So just to be absolutely clear: No, zooming _does not_ change anything in your image apart from how large objects appear. That would require displacement, which a zoom does not provide. I have literally no idea how Flatzoid could claim any different; he could take any camera of his choosing and debunk anything he says with ease.
I’m not sure flatzoid even understood what he was hearing when he watched those videos. His response of nodding & agreeing is very similar to what I’ve always done when talking with someone when I don’t understand what they’re talking about, or when I’m sitting in class, listening to a physics lecture, finding myself completely lost🤣
This doesn't correlate with flerfs zooming in on ships to "bring them back over the horizon". Surely they would drop over the horizon even more if Flatzoid were ever right about anything.
Yep. Nothing like a belief which relies on two mutually contradictory arguments!
I came across the same thing with the Gavin Menzies book "1421 the year the Chinese discovered the world". One piece of his evidence relies on sea levels being lower than they are today, and another relies on sea levels being higher. Yet a third piece of evidence relies on sea levels being the same as they are today...
"Flatzoid's Compression" sounds like the name of a spinal column condition; hopefully it should be treatable with massive doses of factual information.
One question, though: Why would Flatzoid think the compression would only occur in a downward direction? Wouldn't the compression effect he claims affect the image in all directions, centered at the middle of the view? If it's a lens effect, what happens when the camera is oriented at 90° or 180° to "down"?
I’m really really loved your explanation with the telescope and spotting scope. One thing I’d like to add… if the lenses are circular, they have rotational symmetry… so then where is this “down” bias coming from?!?
Obviously both the lens as well as the projection on the sensor "know" about relative density disequilibrium and thus also know where "down" is supposed to be ... So no, turning the camera upside down or at an 90° angle (or any angle in between) will not cause the background to drop to the side or upwards but always downwards relative to actual Earth within the picture.
~please let nobody take this serious~
The photon knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation.
It's clear to see in his photographs that not only the mountain, but the building, power pole, and the entire grass field beyond the first few feet have been purposely brought down behind the foreground by lowering the camera. They forgot their own sacred rule: "The horizon rises (or lowers) to eye level!"
Eye level is under no obligation to reside at the center of any picture.
Is it possible to use 2 tripods for the big lens - one for the camera and one for the lens, adjusted for height.
Also, top left image - is Flatzoid throwing his hat in the race? He really wants that award.
Edit: 😅I should've watched till the end.
Well SW is giving him a run for his money. Ironically by appearing on his own streams.
i said this on scimandans channel as well.i always love how some of the best arguments against flat earth, are their own arguments
Fartzoid has climbed the ladder to the top of the flat earth heap, and he's not about to step down from that first rung for anybody.
I’m having a hard time seeing the flat earth heap. Do I need to zoom out?
It will be a big fall ….🙄
The saying is “Up like the Sun, down like a pancake ….”
Now I am picturing failzoid and Eric Dubious on top of ladders with giant cotton buds trying to knock each other off 😂
@@Bnio It's gone over the curve.
@@dogwalker666 I would pay good money to see that happen. But only if the ladders were extremely high, and the cotton buds were alight.
Keep dunkin on em bro, you're doing humanity a service by calling out these dummys 👍 eventually they'll run out of shitty arguments and just yell, cry, and scream about how they're right. Some of them are already doing it 😂
Seems for some "Eventually" is in the same sense that the heat death of the universe is eventually
They never run out of shitty arguments. They just circle back to the top of the list and start over.
just a suggestion, but you should make a reveal video at the same time as you make the challenge video, and then make it private/unlisted, that way when the time comes to do the reveal you have a time-stamped version of the video that shows you did have a predetermined result to help defuse accusations of changing the results to stymie the flat earthers.
You can make the full debunk video after the challenge has been attempted, but reference the reveal and un-private it so that viewers can go to it and see what you had. maybe something like each photo, zoom them out, and then show their meta-data in sequence, no voice over no special effects required.
That first photo where he thought made the mountains dissappear you can tell the 200mm photo was shot from a much lower height.
Flatzoids moved the goalposts so far theyre now obscured by curvature.
Lenses are mysterious, unpredictable creatures. Sometimes they bring things back up over the horizon. Sometimes they push things down over the horizon. Sometimes they do nothing at all to objects and the horizon. You never know what they'll do!
Amazing how "lens compression" has no effect on the horizontal and no effect on the vertical other than to fold out distant parts just above the horizon line.
The genuine hysterical truth that flerfs are so focused on their cherry-picking that they continually post their own debunks, saving us all the time and effort doing it.
I love your videos. You are probably the GOAT when it comes to debunking this madness. I love how even tempered you are. Suggestion: For those of us that own dogs that shed, we have to be careful what color t shirt we wear on camera. Hope you dont take this as a slight. Just offering a tip that might level up your game a bit.
I Have a White Jack Russell, Absolutely everything is covered in little white hairs.
Given how popular Rusty is with many viewers, it might be intentional.
If Dave is anything like myself and most other dog owners I know, you reach a point where, unless you're going out somewhere, you stop worrying about it and accept it. And buy a decent vacuum.
I used to hate that my dog shed. My dog is getting old. I will be sad when I stop finding his dog hair on everything and in everything. I am now somehow comforted when I am far from home and I find his hair in my luggage.
@@JW-mb6tq 🐶🤝 agreed.
I eagerly await another video from Failzoid where he totally embarrasses himself even further and carries on digging that hole.
I appreciate your approach to debunking flat earth. You treat people with much more respect than do most other debunking channels. I think that’s the better approach to changing minds rather than simply hurling insults. Of course it’s a ridiculous thing to believe the earth is flat, but I think there are reasons people believe in flat earth that go beyond evidence, and making fun of them isn’t going to change their minds.
So tiny variations in photographs of varying focal lengths are not imperfections of camera geometry, but irrefutable proof of the earth being flat.
Riiiight.... makes total sense.
I’m not a photographer, but I can clearly see a glaring problem with the two pictures of the girl. The 200mm shot is clearly taken closer to the ground because you can see two things happening. First, look at the plane of the grass. You can clearly see the grass taking up half the shot in the 12mm shot, yet only 1/4 of the 200mm shot. Also, the average height of the grass goes to her hips at 12mm but only to the bottom of her coat in the 200mm shot. Second, look at the height of the telephone pole in relationship to the mountains and also her elbow. It starts near her shoulder the mountains are below her elbow. In the 200mm shot, that same pole is now down by her hand which would now put the mountains probably below her coat. I have no idea how Flatzoid could go on about focal lengths when he can’t even spot problems that “normal” people can see.
Great video as usual Dave! The “top left” reference was gold! 😂 At the end, Flatzoid by accident agreed that it wouldn’t make any difference “because, you’re zooming in” on the video from the Slanted Lens, as if zooming in is not changing the focal length! Double fail, and goalpost moving! It’d be very funny, if instead of 12 frames on the new comparison challenge you had 11, but he might have been triggered by that number of frames then! 😂
Flatzoid probably will claim that the goalpost has moved because he used a different focal length. Great video @Dave McKeegan. Like you told me before, it turned out better than we hoped.
My money’s on “trees across a lake don’t count, gotta be mountains”
Failzoid will remove the Goalposts and all "11" players 😂
@@dogwalker666 🤣
@@TinyCaptainSailingTheGlobe 👍🏻
17:05 And shouldn't when they zoom in with their camera of choice Nikon P1000 "to bring boats back to view" an opposite thing happening when zooming in if this was the case? I mean make them disappear instead of "bringing them back to view"? Flath Earthers, never change.
Flatzoid really wants that top left award. He is subconsciously craving it.
Question. What's "DOWN" on a photograph taken with a circular lens? Why not up, or sideways. Hmm?
Kind of a silly question. Down is towards the center of the earth.
@@bigsoda4276 no i get that, in our inertial reference frame we decide that down is towards the centre of the earth. My point is why would a lens makes things go "down" and not up or sideways? The lens doesn't care about our frame of reference! It's just another example of things being twisted to fit flerfers beliefs. Rule No.1 - gotta lie to flerf!
Exactly, they never explain _how_ there is a preferential direction.
@@Tsudicosleeping warrior has, he says God determined up and down just for humans. No humans, no up and down.
@@cygnustsp Poor birds must be flying upside down and sideways all over.
Love that Flatzoid out smarted himself in his analysis
How is a lens supposed to "push down" objects in the background anyway?
Optical theory and basic geometry tells us that moving the camera will change the relationship between objects in the scene because the viewing angles and sight lines have moved. This introduces parallax and perspective shifts.
But if you just change the lens, and _don't_ move the camera, then none of the geometry of the scene has actually changed. The sight lines are the same, the perspective is the same, nothing has shifted to obscure any objects in the scene. How do they imagine that the sight lines to the mountains in the background have changed?
More likely explanation for the differences in the photos with the girl - for some inexpiable reason, the photographer knelt down for the one photo, whereas the others were taken while standing up, thus changing the perspective.
You mean, as they directly stated which Dave showed a screenshot of at 1:00? It's not inexplicable, for this style of shoot the reason is "felt like it".
Out of these 12 the only four I can guess which were taken first (not the focal length, I have no clue about that) are 9, 1, 7, and 4 and I can only tell that from the position of the birds on the water; I'd love to see Flatzoid try and say he knows which is which because of pixel differences despite the photos being taken over a period of time meaning they would not be a perfect match no matter what because of cloud cover and wildlife moving
I had a similar thought every time I heard them say "pixel perfect".
You could use the same camera and lens, and the images taken over time won't be pixel identical.
But what we do expect (which is actually Dave's argument) is that large objects (like mountains) won't have obvious vertical shifts due only on the lens used. If the only differences are few percent shifts in pixel brightness, and not tall objects appearing or disappearing, then they've already conceded that their central premise is wrong.
I had a conversation with a professional photographer who sounds just like this guy. He was telling me about how he was on a shoot for NatGeo or WSJ about the homeless, and he met this lady who was at her wits' end ... Her late husband was a Vietnam vet who lost both legs and an eye in action but was dishohorably discharged for drug abuse when he was denied medical benefits owing to a technicality and committed suicide, leaving her and her two kids (age 2 and 5) and herself, pregnant, on the streets, pleading for handouts.
"That's heartbreaking," I nodded. "So, what did you give her?"
He said, "Well, it was a little overcast so I gave her f3.5 for 1/30th of a second ..."
Why would the lens, which is circular, cause the mountain to move down, out of shot and not up or sideways? Could Flatzoid address that?
It would be cool if something like 3 of the 12 images were shot from exactly the same camera and lens with exactly the same settings but just a minute or so between each shot so they're not entirely identical.
Flatzoid is absolutely reliable. He fails every time as expected.
I did something very similar to convince some actual photographers on how this worked, more than two decades ago. So many believe that "perspective" is related to something other than "point of view", and are often surprised to learn otherwise. But, hey, the photographers "got it".
You should turn the camera upside down. Imagine how much more of the earth you could see with a long focal length somehow pulling the objects up and into view! Or is the lens somehow working with the electrostatic mumbo jumbo of the earth to keep down in the right direction?
If the lens is pushing the background down, what if you turn the camera up side down? 😊
Which way does the background move if the camera is pointed straight up?
I’m still confused by what mechanism does flatzoid believe that the light from a distant mountain knows what focal length you are using; in order for it to no longer appear in the image cast on the camera sensor?
Yet somehow in the 4 test images Dave presented. The light from the background has decided it’s going to ignore its previous behaviour of adjusting its path due to what focal length is used. So the background appears in exactly the same relative position to the foreground regardless of which focal length lens is used.
Is every photon think just as it leaves the surface of the background. “I’m headed for a 150mm lens so I’m going to go in a straight line for about 900m then I’m going to bend my trajectory upwards over the top of the camera.
Oh no! It’s globeearther Dave (in the pay of the only purveyors of science in history- NASA) McKeegan taking the photo. I’m going to travel straight into the lens ‘cos he’s making a video about this sort of thing.”
At 9m06s - today. FZ says that the horizon is the "apparent point where the sky and sea appear to meet"
Well, in the picture, the edge of the notice board is the "apparent point" where the board and the water, or the tree line "appear to meet"
I suggested this to him once before, but it passed him by ....
Time to guess the lengths by how the ducks are moving in the background. lol
Only 2 minutes in, and you've already dealt Flatzoid a massive blow. Nicely done!
if I had time on my hands I might hazard a guess at the order the photos were taken in by the movement of the floats on the lake. but it would still be a random guess what order the lenses were swapped out in.
In the spirit of Christmas, I forward by detailed analysis of the amount of background reduced by the focal length used.
My conclusions on the 12 images ...
12 - drummers drumming
11 - pipers piping
10 - lords a-leaping
9 - ladies dancing
8 - maids a-milking
7 - swans a-swimming
6 - geese a-laying
5 - golden rings
4 - calling birds
3 - french hens
2 - turtle doves and
1 - a partridge in a pear tree
And that seems more logical that anything from Failzoid
@@IrishStoneRath please put it back. Otherwise I will look like the only person with that idea … as absurd as it is. 😁
Want to completely destroy flat earthers?
"A 15 degrees per hours drift."
Thanks Bob. 🙂
Hi Dave, great video as always. Do you think you could provide direct downloads of each of the 12 images? I have some ideas for how to tell them apart, but CZcams's compression screws them up somewhat.
If your method of telling them apart relies on *that* much fidelity, then you aren't looking at the actual claim. Flatzoid claimed that so much variation in focal length would make a *huge* difference in what is visible in the background, not that there would be petty differences in pixels.
'screws them up somewhat' in the sense that it removes the EXIF data? ;)
@@jursamaj Flatzoid's claim was already debunked by the original four images. Since it's impossible to tell the images apart from "background drop" (since it doesn't exist) I want to try using other methods such as compression artifacts, distortion, chromatic aberration, and edge sharpness.
The thing I love about this is that even if flatzoid (or anyone else) was able to tell what focal lengths the pictures were at, it wouldn’t matter. His original point was that the background moves “down” with longer focal lengths. The pictures clearly prove that wrong, and there’s nothing he can say to refute it. Of course he totally ignored that and just focused on trying to see if he could tell the difference between them lol
I think the issue here is that Flat Earthers are arguing there's some kind of up and down parallax effect when you zoom in on something from a distance. But this makes no sense when you think about it. What would cause this effect? Why does zooming in on something change the orientation of the composition?
For context, there are 24 orders for the pictures.
9 with 0 matches
8 with 1 match
6 with 2 matches
0 with 3 matches
1 with 4 matches
So it's a 25% chance of getting exactly 2 correct by chance.
What would be the number of possible permutations with 12 images?
Genuingly interested in the maths involved.
@@francoiscoupal705712!(factorial), I guess
Dave’s videos are not only a stick in the wheel for the flers, but they are ALWAYS backed up by facts and demonstrations. I must also mention Martymer, who appeared just recently, addressing the stoopidities from the flatheads, and like Dave always back up his claims with facts and demonstrations.
Scimandan has his style, but Dave and Martymer leaves nothing to discuss, unless anyone is eager du deny facts.
0:59 a hilariously quick response of that photographer. hes so embarassed that flerfs use it^^
I am just getting started with learning photography. After this video, I feel like I understand focal length a lot better now. Thanks for that.
Also, I love that the flat earther completely overlooked the fact that the background didn't dip down at all in any of the 4 photos.
Awesome job, man. This whole thing completely debunks his argument.
Flatzoid doesn't remember what he says day to day.
Been waiting for this one! Yay!
Any apparent motion of the goalposts is due to pesperctive.
It's a million times obvious in the right-side picture of the girl that the angle to the telephone pole is drastically different. Since this doof is paying so much attention to detail, why didn't he notice so much missing telephone pole?
Man, if it were me, I'd have taken 4 photos with the exact same lens but ever so slightly different settings and let flatzoid go on and on about which is which when they're all literally the exact same. Considering he already kinda did that to himself and still came to conclusions based on two of the images being accidentally the same, I'm a hundred percent sure he would have fell for it.
How I would like it if lotto numbers were as predictable as guys like Flatzoid. In the comments of the last video several people correctly predicted that if Flatzoid were to accept the challenge he would go for irrelevant pixel differences while completely ignoring his own original claim about a miraculously downward directed "drop in the background" for both the picture with the girl and - more importantly - the Blackpool Tower image. 🤣
1:16 This is not true completely. When a portrait is taken at many focal lengths, facial features are "compressed" or exaggerated... But this is for an up close subject and has the xamera moving back to compensate for the zoom of the focal length... It shouldn't change distant images.
I wonder why his first thought wasn't just that the photographer had to move further away from the model with the 200mm lens, and that he moved 'downslope' because the land wasn't level and thereby dropping the mountain out of sight below the new horizon. It's a bit weird.
You should have taken images of goalposts because I'm sure they will move if Flatz dares to attempt your new challenge
G'day Rusty & Dave,
The fact he also couldn't determine the Focal Lenth by "Height Of Background" as he claimed, but instead made his judgement based on "How Blurry the Background is" Totally Debunked himself by showing height of Background is not affected by Focal Length & the only thing he actually has is 🐮💩 & "NU-UHH!"
I don't know why i don't get notifications for your videos but they do show up in my feed thank the gods.
3:18 about time someone showed one of my inane comments.
Nicely done, Dave. Glad you doubled down on the test, added many more images, etc.
Is it just me, or does Flatzoid's use of fancy grid lines around 5:51 make it abundantly clear that structures on the horizon are not moving up/down? Does that in itself not debunk the entirety of the theory?
Bingo.
This is a perfect test !
However, as the flat earther said (can't remember his name again 😅), "even if I'm wrong, I'm right, because...... reasons" 🤣🤣 So of course you'll never manage to convince him or anyone else who only seek to confirm his bias. But for anyone else who genuinelly looks for actual educational content based on facts and reproducible experiments, these videos are really excellent. Thanks
PS : many so called "debunkers" would have a lot to learn from your videos instead of just mocking what they're trying to debunk. Because in doing so, I believe they are pretty much using the same way of making science as those they debunk..... "I'm right and you're wrong, but detailing why would take too much time and effort and I have 3 videos a week to publish"