To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DaveMcKeegan . The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription.
LOL, ua-cam.com/video/K4ov3oS5BPE/v-deo.html , World Record Flat Earth Proof Israel to Crete 616 Miles. There, I just debunked your undebunkable fantasy world.
Next, Flat Earthers are going to claim that NASA has some special photo editing software that actually can export as the same filetypes as raw images. If an image is stored in a computer as a series of ones and zeros, then it could theoretically be altered - though I imagine this process would truly be a pain to undertake if the raw filetypes have such depth to them. [Disclaimer: I believe Earth is an oblate spheroid.]
@@Sacrid_Author I mean, every camera capable of saving to RAW formats has software capable of saving to RAW files running on it. So... Yeah, while the grand conspiracy is a ridiculous idea -- trying to make an argument that it's impossible to save NEF files is just a misguided way to go about things at the best of times. He done goofed a bit. Now, to say that NASA is editing millions of RAW files just to fool you, yeah, they might just as well go into space and just make those photos because it is in all likelihood way cheaper. :P
You can edit raw files, there just is no common software around allowing you to do it because there is no point to it. If NASA were fake it would not be that hard for them to fake NEF files. Still faking it to would not be easy. In order to make it look real you would have too come up with a data stream that looks like one from a cameras sensor from a purely technical standpoint I once "edited" a NEF, just for fun. I used a hex editor to insert a punch of 0s and marvel at the strange artifacts that produced. The file was still readable by ordinary raw image viewers so yes you can edit NEFs and other RAWs just fine from a Technical standpoint, making edits that are meaningful or look realistic would be much harder tough FIY i am not a flerf or anything
Yes, way too sophisticated for them to grasp let alone grapple with. I like the more common sense approaches where you make basic observations about the sky and watch them devolve into talking about personal domes and other nonsense.
They say that nasa fake their missions for money and control. but they never asked what is the point of wasting billions of dollars on fake (real) missions?
@@ChaosPootato You already had me sold on getting them strapped to weather balloons, but why stop at the stratosphere? Send them farther. Much farther.
What I really love is the cognitive dissonance which has Flat Earthers simultaneously believing that NASA could *perfectly* fake every single one of those images, yet forget to crop out bubbles and wires.
and that nasa apparently had modern cgi in the 60s to allow them to fake everything from the start and then have 60 years to advance that cgi and still have such basic and horrible mistakes now is amusing
@@dotdot2560EXACTLY. Like computer graphics back then was IMO worse than super Mario 64 for the Nintendo64. And didn’t nvidia mathematically prove that it was physically impossible at the time
As a professional 3D artist working in visual effects for 25+ years, I can tell you - - and any flat earth believer - that their claims of "cgi" are utter and complete b.s. Not just with this particular video, but all of them. It is laughable and they clearly have no idea what it takes. I was a supervisor on many films, including Tron Legacy and Oblivion - and the amount of work is..insane.
The White House allocated $25.4 billion to NASA in its federal budget request for fiscal year 2025, which was released today (March 11). That's a 2% increase over the $24.9 billion the agency is getting for fiscal 2024, an amount that was enacted by Congress just last Friday (March 8).
I just wanted to say that I really appreciate how nice you are while debunking. Being rude doesn't help trying to convince people of things. I wish more people would try and be nice when discussing things.
You’ll find that the majority of sane, science-based debunkers (normal globe believing people) are often the nicest ones in debates and videos… It’s the flatearthers who swear, scream, insult, ridicule, and generally try to humiliate globers by yelling disgusting profanity at them etc… That’s the problem ! People who understand science and can read don’t need to throw around disgraceful language and horrendous behaviour to show we are right 😉 🌎🌍🌏
@morpheus2913 Predict a single celestial phenomenon with your model. You and your community of truth knowers have yet to predict one. In this regard its infinity to zero globists to flerfers.
@@nathanhensinger6645 Heres a simple celestial question for you... As it is a well established fact that nothing can be measured without a single fixed point of reference... How was it possible to measure anything if everything in the heliocentric model is supposedly moving... Earth allaged rotation 1k mph Earth alleged speed 66.6k mph Sun alleged speed 500k+ mph So what fixed point did your priests of Psuedo-Science use to measure all thet satanic numbers crap with??? And do not say its not satanic because 666 comes up way..... Too much for it NOT to be!
I have to play devil's advocate for a moment. If somebody with enough time and money wanted to create software that could export one of these RAW files without needing the actual camera, it could totally be done. Just because no consumer software can do that at the moment, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That being said, obviously I don't think these are fake. I'm just saying, I wouldn't say it is impossible to fake them either.
To fake all of NASA's photos/videos, it would cost FAR more than their budget and include massive teams of artists. Flerfers believe you just click a few buttons and bam, perfect image appears.
@@robbarton7972ou can see the guy’s fingers droop for a couple frames as his hand impacts the iPad, showing his hand hit a real object and not a CGI object.
Nothing is un-debunkable to a flat earther. Once they have gone through the 5 stages of grief trying to come up with reasons for why something is fake, there is the ultimate "Nu Uh" - which debunks everything. As an aside, it seems, to me, that many flat earthers are stuck at the Angry stage.
The sunrise and sunset is enough to debunk flat Earth, and they have no problems lying about what they actually see: “the sub gradually fades into a tiny dot” or “perspective” or even “buoyancy”. When I ask why the lower half of the sun gets blocked during a sunset (and what’s blocking it?), I get ghosted.
With lots of time, they still can fly a camera down in Australia and show us they’re driving upside down and being held up by gravity. Please brother, you’re being fooled just like the American election system. Go bend a knee to your masters. 😂
This has become one of my favourite channels over the past month. Your non-aggressive debunking is such a joy to watch and I also get to learn a bunch about cameras and how fascinating they can be. Keep up the great work!
There's a bit of a misconception here about RAW files. They can in principle be edited (in fact, people edit metadata of RAW files commonly). The fact Photoshop doesn't mess with them isn't proof positive that no software can. But yeah, it's a good channel.
@@tomaszwota1465 One of the benefits of a raw file (NEF in the case of Nikon) is that as you process the raw data into a viewable image, the raw data remains unchanged. So the output from the manipulation of the NEF data must be saved in a different file form (tiff, jpeg, etc.) and the original raw file remains intact and unchanged. altering metadata is a different thing, really..
@@tomaszwota1465 I see what you're saying about "in principle" raw files being edited if you include their metadata but metadata doesn't affect the image data contained within a raw file, and what is meant when we say raw files can't be "edited."
@@crckdns Yes, but that's not an inherent limitation. You can just edit the raw data in that NEF or save the edited version to a new NEF/RAW format. Nothing is stopping you - data is data - it's just that it's not something people working with these files deem useful. You WANT to keep the RAW file in it's original state because that's the _function_ of a _raw_ file. Not because it cannot be done, but because it's useful to NOT do that.
I've seen a LOT of comments where people are completely missing the point. I'm a 20-year software engineer, and yes, we all know that files can be edited. We all know that even encrypted .bin files can be cracked. We all know that no file format is "safe" from those of us with enough reason and time. The point that Dave is making when he says these are impossible to fake is that the work that would be involved to create a file with this much sensor data, that has no flaws, whose details can be scrutinized so closely, and who light values can be changed to reveal various details, would take an ENORMOUS amount of time to create. And that's just ONE file. To create the thousands that would all have to be generated individually with the exact "next frame" details would be mind-bogglingly difficult. I'm not aware of any software in existence today that can generate CGI good enough to hold up to this kind of scrutiny. And forget about doing this shit by hand. Not happening AT ALL. So calm down, software people. We know you can create and edit these files given enough time. But if you really think you are editing them to this level of realism, or even worse, generating them from scratch with this level of detail, you are treading close to being in the realm of the flat earthers.
Exactly. If you claim it can be faked, repeat it. Create the Thousands of photo's that Exactly match the lighting, texture, reflections, weather etc, etc that Exactly match reality of the Earth at the time of the photo... See you in 10 years or so...
Also, if the content was indeed fake, they could have achieved substantial cost savings by not making every frame available for download in RAW format.
Even if they were faked, the amount of time it would take to make these photos manually would mean it's unlikely the cloud formations on the earth would line up exactly with where the weather is being tracked on the given day and time and position the photos were taken.
Absolutely true, BUT... these people think that because something might theoretically be possible, then that's exactly what they're doing. They'll ignore silly questions like "why would NASA bother doing all that".
The most undebunkable thing I've ever seen is from the 2022 Tonga volcano eruption. It caused a pressure wave to circle the Earth. My amateur weather station in my back garden picked it up from 16,000 km away after 14 hours. It also picked up the pressure wave coming from the other direction a few hours later. On the app the weather station is connected to you can view other people's weather stations. Every single one of them I checked picked up the pressure wave at an appropriate time based on their distance from Tonga. So either every single amateur weather station on Earth was compromised by Big Globe... or we live on a spinning ball.
Very cool info, but yeah, they will still deny it and claim its compromised/faked data. At this point, the number of people that would have to be "in on it" in regards to a globe conspiracy is mindboggling.
THAN bring me one proof for a globe, fast spinning water curving space crossing ball, one will do. Here you've got 200 proves for the FLAT EARTH, can you count, sheep believing in a non proven 500 year old theory are sick! ua-cam.com/video/N9CQPMOzeRs/v-deo.html
Because no one is funding it. Those who think that the earth is not a sphere do not have the same opportunities that the brainwashers of the entire population of the flat earth have.
Setting aside the whole flat earth thing, it’s still really cool to see stuff done by NASA presented and explained. I always learn something from your videos. Thank you!
If we're being honest these videos are NEVER intended for flat earthers because this is even more pointless than arguing to a wall which in addition constantly cusses and spits at you. These videos are made for people who know the Earth is a globe but wanna learn more about space, spaceflight, photography, geography and so much more which stems from these explanations
Yeah that's what I'm here for, to learn fun stuff about space and cameras. Who cares what flat earthers think, I don't think most of them believe it themselves, they just like to argue on the internet.
@@mihan2dI respectfully disagree. I think Dave actually does want to educate flat earthers, unlike others such as SciManDan who seem to mostly enjoy insulting people. I really appreciate that Dave (mostly) refrains from personal jabs.
@@truthsmiles Well SciManDan pisses me off too because when I saw his videos I was hoping he would explain the phenomenons in question but instead all he did was to stoop to their level and start barking. Nowadays his content is a bit more educational but still miles behind Dave's content anyway. As for Dave, he can only educate people who WANT to learn something as opposed to flerfs who ACTIVELY shut themselves off from any new information. That might work on gullible people who are on the fence though.
I'm a CS major. We actually had a course on image processing. While it is true that conventional software doesn't allow saving to a new falsely raw file, it doesn't mean that it's impossible to either edit it with your own solution or by creating a plugin for any software of your choice. Having raw files is very compelling and I personally agree that it's too much effort to fake them, but it's not impossible like you claim. Data is just that - data. Unless the manufacturer has taken significant steps towards anti-tampering encryption measures, you can modify the file with just a little know-how.
The thing is even if those files had some cryptographic signature to validate their authenticity, it would still not be enough for most flat earthers, because maybe the evil cabal who makes these images know the details on how to sign their fabricated files. It'll never end.
My thought exactly. It would not be beyond the NSA or agencies in other governments to make raw files from scratch. It may be difficult, but you know that Big Globe (TM) will do anything to make the sheeple believe the lie. No amount of evidence will convince the vast majority of those who know THE TRUTH that they are wrong but one can keep trying.
As a professional that has worked on some of the largest VFX projects in the world, including some that attempted to recreate space in very high fidelity, I have to say that if anyone thinks Hollywood can recreate this level of detail, they are SORELY mistaken.
I'm only an amateur 3D artist playing around with Blender, but you're going to have to break that one down for me. I'll agree up front that faking true RAW pictures is very hard if not impossible (at least I have no idea how to fake that). Not because of the file format or the meta data, but because 3D renderers bake in the white balance, colour space etc. I feel like the level of detail in the pictures and the reflections and stuff are totally doable though. You'd need a couple of really good shader experts and a monster of a render farm to get those pictures rendered in a reasonable time, but it's possible. Gravity was pretty much there. All this would need in that respect is higher res textures and all of those tiny details can be done procedurally (that's what you're paying your shader experts for right?), but this would essentially be a single scene at a very low framerate.
@@Hugh.Manatee If you tried to model space and zero gravity, without people, is one thing, but once you try combining the real and the 'fake', such as people flying around and interacting with things, is where it becomes neigh on impossible. There will always be some inconsistency that will be able to be scrutinized, because even technology of today is very far from perfect.
@@C4... Haha, the nice thing about the internet is we don’t have to reveal who we are, but you will find me on the credit of both Gravity and The Martian, for those who know it’s already enough to tell who I am ;)
When I was more conspiracy inclined years ago, this would not have convinced me. It would be too technical, things I would not have knowledge of, and I would simply think "well you say you can't save raw files, but they might have some means of doing that anyway". So I don't think you'll ever convince somebody totally lost in conspiracy land. There's always something that's not 100% provable and they'll latch onto that. But all evidence might stack up for the not totally lost, and will prevent them from being so. One can hope
Exactly. The enemy is always insanely advanced and has unlimited resources, but the enemy is also obsessed with sticking in weird upside down messages and are making elementary "errors" even a student wouldn't make. Someone without any experience can always sit atop Mount Dunning-Kruger and pretend to be an expert.
Not a flerf just curious, is it possible that an edited file is "formatted"(not sure what the right word can be used here) with the same name as the raw file?
@@notjeff7833 it's entirely possible to generate any file of any extension provided you know how they are encoded, and as far as I understand .nef files have a pretty well known encoding and it wouldn't be far-fetch that one could write some software to generate one from a fabricated image. It would be some insanely complicated work to generate these thousands of images with the window smudges and the dead pixels and very realistic depictions of a globe earth, but definitely not impossible.
Normal people: Makes good sense. Flat earthers: Very simple. NASA makes the website, they can write the EXIF data them selves and edit the EXIF on the files...
And then after NASA faked the photographs, they arranged for the weather across the surface in every country to line up with the cloud formations, dust density, forest fires, nighttime traffic and pollution depicted in the faked photographs. Down to day, hour, minute and the second. But when you're faking a space mission, that's the effort you have to commit. They mastered it faking the moon landing: there would be a fake painted Earth visible in certain photographs, and to make the illusion seamless, NASA would then arrange later that the weather across the entire real Earth would mimic perfectly the fake painting at exactly the right time.
Flat Earthers don't work in facts. Bill Murray once said a quote “It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.” Fits them perfectly.
Yes, the hours and time it would take to do is not consistent with them uploading 24 /7 people think cgi is made quick. No it isn’t it takes ages to do small bits. That’s why movies and shows take so long to film. To get so much cgi footage out all the time everyday would be so expensive. Ok so they would probly say oh NASA is is rich. But the time thing they could not prove because to do what they do it would take a bunch of speed of light magicians to produce that cgi every minute of every day! It can’t be done. We are not that advanced. They are taking as gospel the bible which was written by men in a patriarchal society. Jesus and God would be horrified about the things so called religious people have done in their name. Its ridiculous. People need to read Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsh. Interesting books.
exactly, why go through all that trouble just to fake it? If it was all fake shouldnt have needed to do any of that in the first place.... we never went to the moon for as long as we have been around, why now? because we have rockets? then they are acknkowledging that it IS actually possible because we have rockets lol
With lots of time, they still can fly a camera down in Australia and show us they’re driving upside down and being held up by gravity. Please brother, you’re being fooled just like the American election system. Go bend a knee to your masters. 😂
"But it's a fisheye lens!" "No it's not. The file gives the lens it was using. That lens is rectilinear. Also, the straight arms of the Crane in the foreground would also be curving, not just the Earth, if that lens was fisheye" "BUT MUH SPACE PIZZA DELUSION PANTOMIME CHARADE!"
@@ChillaxeMake Yeah of course you can. My point about the arms of the crane being curved as well as the Earth if the lens was wide angle still stands though
@@MightyMattTMHis point was about messing with any part of the data including visual so straightened cranes and the likes are toddler level computing. Don't need to be Spielberg to curve a straight line ethier.
@@whyter11 *_"toddler level computing"_* I think that's a little extreme. How long have you been programming for to make such an expert opinion? What languages do you program in? I started with BASIC on the TRS 80 but most recently I've been using Rust and there have been an alphabet of languages in between from procedural, to object oriented, to functional.
@@whyter11 " so straightened cranes and the likes are toddler level computing" Ok, so do it and show us. Take a photo of something flat with two other straight lines crossing in front of it with a fisheye lens, and edit the two crossing lines to be straight while the background stays curved.
I have to thank flat earthers for making this video necessary. I would never have come across these files, let alone seen the amazing detail in the reflection in the window of the dragon without them giving someone like Dave the motivation. And that was such an amazing moment that I am very grateful to have experienced. Even more thanks to Dave, of course, for the work and time he put in.
Bet you £1000 your vaccinated lol Incapable of critical thinking and preferring the comfort of being TOLD what the truth is rather than invest time and energy in finding things out for yourself 😂
I concur. I’ve learned so much about astronomy and physics falling down the flat earth rabbit hole. These types of videos have renewed my interest in science.
I have reached a point in this continuing saga where I am thoroughly convinced that if you took a flat earther into space, then on a spacewalk... They would happily remove their helmet to prove you were faking it
@@yupok318 the fact that you bring this up surely means you also looked up the amount of air that is present at that height... Oh wait, you're a flerf, of course you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't attempt to strawman the globe.
If you took a flat earther into space and let them see a globe earth with their own eyes, they would still say it was fake, keep it up guys, pure comedy gold 🤣
Correct --- they even try to debunk their own videos when their experiments prove the earth is not flat but a rotating sphere (Thanks Bob, rest his soul" ... "Thanks Jeran.").
I believe that's a generalization. The people who refused such flat out evidence are either in shock or they are mentally ill and may require medical assistance. I believe you can sway a good number of people and I think the idea of flat earth may just kinda go away once/if space flight is a regular thing like driving a car.
It's like the anti vaxxers, they did studies, and many people who already believed vaccines caused autism, when faced with the facts, research, trials, everything, often times only doubled down, and even believed more into their own theory, since in their mind, everyone is in on it, and the person trying to debunk your claims is just a cog in the machine.
@@bullwyrk "do your own research" proponents are often the worst at doing their own research because they had an idiot, themselves, teach them how to research.
@SpazzyMcKenzie On the day of the equinox both poles will have the sun at the horizon and going around ,then one will observe it get below while the other will observe 24hours sunlight for almost 6 months
It takes a village, and you have definitely earned your place in the Flat Earth debunking community with accessible articulation. I appreciate that you bring fresh angles to things that we've heard covered for years. The time you invest is evident, and we thank you!
THAN bring me one proof for a globe, fast spinning water curving space crossing ball, one will do. Here you've got 200 proves for the FLAT EARTH, can you count, sheep believing in a non proven 500 year old theory are sick! ua-cam.com/video/N9CQPMOzeRs/v-deo.html
While normally I'd agree with everything you say, as a software engineer, I can say it's quite likely that the engineers at Nikon, Sony, etc, have software that can create those types of raw files because that's how they'd test making firmware for the cameras. Technically it is likely someone has software - and if a powerful organization wanted to lie about something they could potentially either buy the software from the company in some capacity or have a software engineer develop it themselves. It depends on how persuasive the government organization is willing to be... But the reality remains, no matter what proof you offer, it will be refuted - either intelligently or not. Usually just with a very ignorant response - like, "It's all fake and lies and you're not my real dad."
Yep, made the same point. Claiming that it's "impossible" is going off the deep end. Nothing impossible about saving to a NEF - cameras do it all the time.
You could imagine continuously rendering all of this stuff to doctored RAW files… but that would be an implausibly large and expensive operation, requiring a huge amount of attention to detail across many technical fields, with little room for error, all to just be uploaded on some dinky corner of the NASA website. This project alone would be a massive undertaking, but combined with all the other stuff they’d need to be juggling it seems pretty far-fetched compared to just sticking a camera on the ISS.
I can completely picture how to do this in a relatively quick manner using Blender for the base models, noise filters in photoshop with a random element added to add the slight shifts, etc. Automation could make it happen and it's a lot easier with a lot less resources than you might think (relatively speaking.) They didn't, but It can be done - now. The old IMAX film footage from the Shuttle missions would actually be more convincing to me, if I actually needed any convincing.
@@kstricl i think you underestimate something here. The light, shadows and movements of clouds need to be exactly the same corrrelated to Earth. So this cannot be done in a procedural manner. Which skyrockets the effort to Infinity. If a 1000+ plus Photos have to be hand crafted people will mess up and there will be inconsistencies.
They will still say its CGI though... Unfortunately, most flat earthers know little to nothing about advanced CGI animation. They have no idea that there is no animation studio or animator alive in this world that could render that video. They don't know how hard particles are to simulate. They don't know how hard real life illumination is to simulate. They don't know how hard textures are to simulate. They don't even know how hard making that sun lens effect is. They simultaneously see the limits of cgi when they go see a movie, and believe that videos multiple times more complex, detailed, and long, could be done with the same methods. Dude, it takes a studio YEARS to make the "money shot" for most movies. And you think they can pull off a live feed 24/7 of an even greater quality? Are you nuts? A single second of that video would take hours to process, how the hell does that work? Why am I even asking, most flat earthers are pretty deep into conspiracies, they probably believe in government time travel, aliens, and reptilian stuff... they'll probably argue that they have "better computers" and feel convinced...
Don’t forget that they don’t even understand that cgi even takes time. There have been livestreams from the ISS, both from the inside and outside. And they just say it’s people animating it in real time lmao. They are brain-broken, and their lack of belief in basic truth won’t be fixed by showing them evidence they are wrong. It’s a more personal issue I think.
Let's be honest flat earthers are so diluted in there beliefs that if given a chance to go directly to space for free they will just say it was faked in a studio because they weren't allowed to exit the space craft.
You could take a flat earther to the space station and let them look out of the window and they would still come up with an excuse to “explain” why it’s fake.
A few people have touched on or asked about this, so as a bona fide programmer I'm going to elaborate. I don't doubt that most, if not all, photo editing programs do not provide the option to save in a raw format because that really doesn't make much sense. If you changed the image, it's not "raw" any more, is it? Also, since every manufacturer's raw file format is unique it's already a ton of work to develop the import code, never mind the export code. Manufacturers may also limit by contract what can be done by applications that work with their raw files. But there is nothing special about raw files. It's 100% possible to write an export plugin that would emit a valid raw file. That being said, I would fully expect that unless the generated images were created with extreme detail and a certain amount of noise, that it would be possible to detect a fabricated or edited raw image.
Yeah, even cryptographically signed RAW files identifying the originating camera (and timestamp, etc) could be faked by an organization that had access to the (putative) private key in the camera. I mean, people willing to believe in a pointless, centuries-long, world-wide conspiracy involving complete cooperation among millions of people and opposing militaries will truly find no bridge too far to protect their fragile egos.
Dave planted a big red target on himself with that one. Flerfers will make 15 videos on "Globe DEBUNKED photographer DOESN'T KNOW how CAMERAS WORK!", lol.
@@tomaszwota1465 While I'm sure flat earthers will find some way to misunderstand this video, what Dave said is, AFAICT, valid as far as cameras and commercial editing software goes. My point is that while lack of utility, cost and/or contractual obligations may explain why the software doesn't exist, that doesn't mean it CAN'T exist. Additionally, because of all the extra detail contained in a raw file I suspect that it would be easier to detect a "modified raw" than a modified jpeg.
@@zar3434 Agreed. I made the same point. Plus, there are tools to modify RAW metadata. No real problem editing the image data either. As you know - it's not magic, it's just data. Just ones and zeroes. You can edit it no problem (grab a hex editor and try) - doing so in a way to be hard to be recognized by an expert (or, even by an amateur user that can investigate the file in a RAW image reader and play around with the sliders) wouldn't be that easy. But one can imagine a Photoshop plugin that would allow you to play with the sliders as well as use all the power of that software to modify the image data. May have to be more involved than a plugin, but nothing stands in the way of writing such software.
@@tomaszwota1465 (edited) Actually, if the camera was to cryptographically sign the raw you couldn't edit it in place as the signature would fail, and the signature can't be regenerated as the private key is unknown. I did a quick google and some cameras do this, but older cameras used proprietary algorithms that have since been cracked. It looks like there may now be an initiative to develop a signature standard. I'm sure @DaveMcKeegan could shed more light on this.
I was thinking this too. They already have a few videos about supposed UFO videos. It wouldn't exactly be outside their wheelhouse to look at flat earth "evidence" and provide their insight on whether it may or may not be visual effects. That said, I could understand if they wouldn't want to weigh in on this subject. After all, UFO's videos _could be_ real. Flat Earth... not so much. Having such a high profile channel focus on Flat Earth might actually provide more exposure for the theory than they would want.
That’s one explanation. However, as a confirmed flat-earther I would put forward an alternative explanation that I once overheard from a bloke in the pub which is that NASA have a room in area 51 where they use oalien technology to clone an infinite number of monkeys who they then train to produce each of the raw files, pixel by pixel using crayon.
I believe that even if you took a flat earther on a rocket to the ISS and lead them on a tour throughout it, they would just claim that they had been drugged and could not confirm their experience.
@@mjelves everything about the globe is undebunkable, but we're dealing with flerfs so we have to use language that they think they understand (even if they don't)
To be fair, no file format is impossible to reproduce. The fact that no editing software you know of doesn't have the capability to save as the new format doesn't mean one couldn't come up with a piece of software to do that. The format has standards of some kind, otherwise it would be unreadable by any editing software. Once you know the standards, then you could write custom software to do whatever you want to replicate whatever you want with that format. That being said, it is likely a monumental undertaking [multiple years with a team of people imho] to reproduce all of those elements with that level of detail in the raw files. I would question just why anyone would ever go through the trouble when it would be simple enough to say "Hey, we don't save the raw files because of storage limitations in the IIS."
I love how flat earthers think CGI is really simple to do. Usually those types of movies, like say Avatar, take months if not years to create. So they think NASA is pumping these out daily or weekly??!! LMAO!! THAT is impossible.
BILLIONS OF BUDGET FROM YOUR POCKET! NASA used AI to control satellite balloons since 70s! Other space agencies? Never heard of them! Satellite images of earth surface - its planes, bruh!
As an amateur astronomer I use the space station orbiting times to not get it in my view, it’s possible to see it with binoculars or even a basic scope.
Flat earthers say its either a plane, or some kind of a holorgram being projected across the sky. They dont even believe their own eyes when they see something for themselves
I take this as a challenge (as a non flat earther) to try and poke holes in this, so here we go! First off, while it is practically impossible to create a face NEF image (assuming NASA don't have any access to Nikon internal software) it is trivial to edit the metadata of the file (exiftool can do it pretty easily, for example I changed the lens information of a file as a test) so that doesn't eliminate the possibility of a miniature. And second, why is there the assumption that NASA does not have access to Nikon's internal software? In the flat earther world Nikon is just another company trying to trick us, why would they not help out NASA in converting, say, exr files to NEF, then just applying the correct metadata? While it counts as proof, it is absolutely not "Undebunkable photographic proof"
I talked to a flat earther the other day in NY. I’m a pilot, I’ve seen the curvature at 50000 feet above the globe. He said it’s parallax error or curvature of the window. Our windows are flat, unlike the earth. He actually believed there is an ice wall keeping the water from falling of the edge. How can you debate someone like that? What about sunlight in Europe when it’s night in America… I asked him if he’s joking- but he was 100% serious.
When flat earthers claim that windows would cause the horizon to be curved, they never take into account that in that case the windows should distort the view already when the aircraft is still on the ground, which doesn't happen. For example, Wolfie6020 made a video where he tested this thing in his aircraft and showed that windows didn't cause distortions. But flat earthers basically just ignored the test.
They do know of it, but they twist it to suit their own foolish needs. They think Occam's Razor reveals that "flat Earth is self-evident but globe Earth is extremely well-faked" - I'm obviously paraphrasing some comments I've seen here and there - when, in truth, every single explanation is so far away from the simplest explanation that it should be the opposite of Occam's Razor, and instead of leading to an explanation, it should lead to further complications in a never-ending spiral staircase of mental Olympics.
L.E.O could debunk this in his sleep. All he has to say is, Dear oh dear, scientifically impossible, and clown show, and I'm sold. Hook line and sinker. 🤣🤣 Before anyone gets the wrong idea, the above was an attempt at humour. Okay? 😉
No one in their right mind believes the Earth is flat, but we going to spend billions of dollars and tens of thousands of man-hours creating footage to try and deceive flerfers? Makes perfect sense…
why aren't there any comments to man hours and money they would have to spend....why all that just to make you believe argue why --whats the point to make it round maybe they aren't and can't do and don't have $$$ to falsify :: Maybe it is round hmmmm. Oh watch all those record braking altitude mig jets flying very high Russia don't give a sh__ about conveniencing you it's round. It Is ROUND
Unfortunately, you are right there. But maybe some flerfs may some day come to believe that the earth is indeed round just like all the other planets and stars out there in space. But as they probably will never go into outer space, they will keep believing in a reality that conforms to their emotional needs for the time being.
....the problem here is not the logic or the intelligent reasoning, it's that we are not dealing with logical, reasonable people but with a form of mental illness. all of which makes for a really interesting study because all of us (and I mean ALL of us) have thing we believe in that are beyond all reason and logic. It's all to do with levels of insanity.
@@cspace1234nz so I had to live all my life with catholichs muslims jews hel even budhists, with ranges of people from useless to impecable, and allways respected them... now because you refuse to understand we have been lied to, I have some mental illness... kay I guess. Gl.
Dave, you're my favourite flat earth debunker on UA-cam. You use facts and reason without being condescending. And I've learnt so much watching your videos these last few months. Great educational content.
Nasa disagrees Space might be the final frontier but its made in a Hollywood basement. www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88104main_H-1391.pdf From Nasa themselves, I'll help you out - page 112
Doesn’t matter how he explain it🤣😆😂 according to Neil deGrasse Tyson and The science of physics🙄 you simply cannot see the curvature of the Earth nowhere in low earth orbit🤣😆😂 you’re simply still too close to the Earth to even see curvature .. this is a fact of science and physics👍 so no matter how he explain it It’s BUHHH Shi! All 1 million pictures and videos😂🤣😆 Earf flat doG!
@@Hebrew816 Well 👍👍 Sorry mate 👍👍 But i think what you read 😆😆😆😆😆 is absolute rubbish 😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃 I would like to see you provide undeniable evidence 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣that the Earf flat doG!
@@PurelyPog Undeniable evidence? According to your pseudoscience belief the earth curves 8 inches after 1 mile😆 so how is it possible to definitely see over 150 miles over the oceans in Hawaii🤣😉 undeniable proof and evidence that the earth is flat or the oceans would’ve curved over after 1 mile ... you can clearly see over 150 miles away proof that the earth is flat🦶. Earf flat doG 😆🤣😘. So now where is your easy proof that the earth is a sphere? Should be simple right? 🤣😘😉 I promise you I will debunk it
2,300 years ago, in ancient Greece, Eratosthenes proved with tremendous accuracy that our planet Earth was a globe, and nothing else, and back in 1543, Nicolaus Copernicus improved on this fact by conclusively adding that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and ended up being persecuted and intimidated by the Catholic Church in the process, during the infamous inquisition... 🧐
Logical explanations will not faze someone who holds their belief for emotional reasons. Still, this is an awesome, bulletproof video. Very entertaining and informative.
"Faze"...etymology online says: "1830, American English, said to be a variant of Kentish dialect feeze "to frighten, alarm, discomfit" (mid-15c.), from Old English fesian, fysian "drive away, send forth, put to flight," from Proto-Germanic *fausjan (source also of Swedish fösa "drive away," Norwegian föysa). Related: Fazed; fazing. Bartlett (1848) has it as to be in a feeze "in a state of excitement." There also is a nautical verb feaze "to unravel" (a rope), from 1560s."
@stuffyme the funniest part is.. it is those who cling to consensus who have an emotional blind faith and scoff at those who honestly question what we are told.. just as they discarded Maxwells ideas in his time only to later find he was indeed correct, plasma physicists would disagree with your entire worldview if thier funding didn't depend on narratives
Anyone with a reasonable amount of programming knowledge can figure out to how to save images in NEF or any other RAW format if the owner of the format makes the format spec public knowledge, or indeed if example files can be examined and the format reverse-engineered. If you're a nefarious shape-shifting alien lizard bent on world domination through denying the reality of the Flat Earth (TM), you merely write the outputting routine into your nefarious world-domination CGI modelling software and pay your shills to promote the resulting files as Undeniable Truth (TM). Oh shit, I can hear the Black Helicopters coming for me!
I truly enjoy your content so much. Very often people are debunking flatearthers in a way where they just go nah-ah, and ask for some additional ridiculous proofs. What you do using your knowledge of photography is just utterly undeniable. (Not for them but maybe you will succeed in making atleast one of them start understanding how crazy their conspiracy really is)
What I’ll never understand about the flat earth nonsense is just why: why would the world governments collude to trick us into thinking the earth is a globe? All other conspiracy theories at least have some sort of purpose to make them plausible. But if the earth were flat, why would anybody lie about that? It would actually make many aspects of life easier.
Because it would prove there was a god or something. They like to think the world can be boiled down into a spiritual battle between good and evil where they are the enlightened heroes of the story. Their real lives are so inadequate that this is the only thing that gives them meaning.
Just a note regarding the raw file request from the NASA website, as we do something similar with large video files at my job. If the files are huge or there are lots of them they are likely being stored in some form of cold storage such as Azure blob storage. Cold storage is cheap, and suited to large data items that are infrequently accessed. Their request process will likely trigger a mechanism that retrieves the file from cold storage into a cache and then allow it to be downloaded from the website.
Yeah they could be in a tape library or something like that. This is what happens if you ask us to restore your server to an earlier backup as it has to connect to the IBM tape library. Obviously that takes some time as there is a physical robotic arm that has to go fetch the correct tape, load it and then the drive scan for the required data. It is a bit quicker if you want to restore a single file or files(s) from one of the incremental backups as those are on hard disks albeit not particularly fast ones, but the full images are sent to tape as they are really good for that kind of bulk sequential work. Also compared to the time needed to copy an entire disk image the access time is pretty minimal.
I do believe with modern technology, AI, very good AI, this could be faked. So with that, I would say the best proof is a personal one. You only need a scale and a weight. The more accurate the scale the better, the heavier the object, the better You weigh the object where you live. Go on vacation closer to the equator and weigh the object again. The object WILL weigh less due to the rotation of the earth cancelling out the weight of the object.
Always encourage experimentation but there's no "AI" in existence that could fake these raw images. You try getting any "AI" image generator to do anything remotely close to this and you'd spot that it's artificially generated within a frame or two. The meta data and ability to literally own these raw files (and so edit the saturation/brightness yourself to see dark regions light up with high clarity) is entirely beyond the capacity of any automated process. And a manually, hand crafted mock up would demand entirely impractical stage scaling to achieve with no way to fake the depth of field nor lighting, as demonstrated by this video. Sadly, the vast majority of flerfers are making their own belief up anyway. And the vast majority of what's left aren't going to bother trying to prove it with experimentation that proves the world is a globe. They'll just stick to the usual, easy to debunk nonsense the grifters peddle (the ones who do it to make money). There is no convincing them. But this type of content (and experimentation) allow actually curious people to quickly realise conspiracy theories are a grift. I remember, very early on in my adult life, when the Internet was quite young, watching a conspiracy theory video about 9/11 and it was extremely convincing. Thankfully, I'm open to curiosity and so allowed myself to absorb the debunk content (over many years) that both tore that (now obviously) fake video apart and also made me aware just how widespread deceptive content, for monetary gain, can be. One might say it's so widespread that it now reaches across the entire globe... PS I flew on Concorde when I was 14 (dad worked for British Airways). I actually got to observe the curvature of the earth for myself. My own personal proof. Not that I need it. The sheer level of distrust in literally everything in order to sustain the belief that the earth is not a globe would be unsustainable.
@@StealthBoyElite There's an organization called "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth". They also have demolition experts and airline pilots. There's a video on my channel showing no plane hitting one of the towers.
The most saddening part of the arguments flat earthers use is that it seems to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding( or an inability to understand in some cases) of gravity.
Man, my question is why hasn't ANY flat earther opt in to try and apply and or go through the training needed to become an astronaut and go into space to see it for themselves. They'd rather keep their butts on earth and continue to raise levels to the horizon in planes or use binos to look at how long and how far of a distance they can see a boat in the water..... Then have the nerve to downplay the complexity of how much work it would take to fake something like this in the way he described. All these calculations they do to prove flat earth but fail to realize the calculations of the size the file or files have to be to be able to incorporate all of those editing details.
Relying on NASA for globe proof is like relying on NIST and the US government to provide the correct account of 9/11. Ballers love referencing models and calculations.
@@The.Original.Hossman One sunset shows that the Earth cannot be flat. No NASA necessary. And if you think you can describe the real world without models and calculations, go back to the sand box.
Yes but, you know they will just ignore your fantastic description and presentation of the facts. I have so much respect for you taking time to debunk these people. Great video.
There are photos of the ice wall on the internet. Use a search engine and type "ice wall". We're told some of them are glaciers the size of London, lol. It's the wall that contains the waters on flat earth.
Why would nasa and world governments want us to think the world is flat? My best answer to a flat earther is explain sunrise and sunset. It doesn't fit the flat earth model
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DaveMcKeegan . The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription.
LOL, ua-cam.com/video/K4ov3oS5BPE/v-deo.html , World Record Flat Earth Proof Israel to Crete 616 Miles. There, I just debunked your undebunkable fantasy world.
A very good presentation Dave. Subscribed.
I expect a universal "nuh uh" response from the flat earth tribe.
Next, Flat Earthers are going to claim that NASA has some special photo editing software that actually can export as the same filetypes as raw images. If an image is stored in a computer as a series of ones and zeros, then it could theoretically be altered - though I imagine this process would truly be a pain to undertake if the raw filetypes have such depth to them. [Disclaimer: I believe Earth is an oblate spheroid.]
@@Sacrid_Author I mean, every camera capable of saving to RAW formats has software capable of saving to RAW files running on it. So... Yeah, while the grand conspiracy is a ridiculous idea -- trying to make an argument that it's impossible to save NEF files is just a misguided way to go about things at the best of times. He done goofed a bit.
Now, to say that NASA is editing millions of RAW files just to fool you, yeah, they might just as well go into space and just make those photos because it is in all likelihood way cheaper. :P
You can edit raw files, there just is no common software around allowing you to do it because there is no point to it. If NASA were fake it would not be that hard for them to fake NEF files. Still faking it to would not be easy. In order to make it look real you would have too come up with a data stream that looks like one from a cameras sensor
from a purely technical standpoint I once "edited" a NEF, just for fun. I used a hex editor to insert a punch of 0s and marvel at the strange artifacts that produced. The file was still readable by ordinary raw image viewers so yes you can edit NEFs and other RAWs just fine from a Technical standpoint, making edits that are meaningful or look realistic would be much harder tough
FIY i am not a flerf or anything
If you believe this is undebunkable. You have seriously underestimated the mindset of flat earthers.
Yes, way too sophisticated for them to grasp let alone grapple with. I like the more common sense approaches where you make basic observations about the sky and watch them devolve into talking about personal domes and other nonsense.
It is undebunkable, they just make up some bullshit, piss their pants, and claim victory
Simple debunk for flat earthers - NASA has the secret ability to create and edit their own various raw files and can easily change meta data, etc.
They say that nasa fake their missions for money and control.
but they never asked what is the point of wasting billions of dollars on fake (real) missions?
Yup. Simply FAKE 😅
You could send flat earthers onto the ISS, and they'd claim earth is flat, and the ISS is fake
And claiming all they witness are just Hollywood special effect
I seriously think they should be strapped to weather balloons, Baumgartner style, to see for themselves
Only if you give them enough oxygen….
Then they will be rejected by the rest
@@ChaosPootato You already had me sold on getting them strapped to weather balloons, but why stop at the stratosphere? Send them farther. Much farther.
What I really love is the cognitive dissonance which has Flat Earthers simultaneously believing that NASA could *perfectly* fake every single one of those images, yet forget to crop out bubbles and wires.
and that nasa apparently had modern cgi in the 60s to allow them to fake everything from the start and then have 60 years to advance that cgi and still have such basic and horrible mistakes now is amusing
It's a surprising level of hypocrisy
@@dotdot2560EXACTLY. Like computer graphics back then was IMO worse than super Mario 64 for the Nintendo64. And didn’t nvidia mathematically prove that it was physically impossible at the time
Or that they would hire Stanley Kubrick to fake the moon landings, but he would choose to mock up a LEM that looks rickety and thrown together.
Not to mention there's like 76 other space agencies around the world that many have no affiliation w NASA or US govt
My Father used to say, Nothing is foolproof to a determined enough fool.....
Awesome! This is a great saying and sums up the problem. I will quote your dad. Greetings to your father!
Yeah tell your Dad hi from me too
This is my new favorite quote.
flat earthers would deny their own hands and feet if they proved the earth was round
They already deny their eyes.
@@alm5966 at that point.. the earth looks round because your eye balls are round .. duh
Well, flat earthers need to start denying their hands and feet then.
They already do, their hands can spin a globe, and their feet can walk around the Earth.
@@sirboredom1012 Their brains also.
As a professional 3D artist working in visual effects for 25+ years, I can tell you - - and any flat earth believer - that their claims of "cgi" are utter and complete b.s. Not just with this particular video, but all of them. It is laughable and they clearly have no idea what it takes. I was a supervisor on many films, including Tron Legacy and Oblivion - and the amount of work is..insane.
Right? They act like cgi is far more advanced than it really is. All the respect for what you guys do for movies. I can't imagine how hard it is.
Both excellent movies, you have my gratitude good sir 🫡
The White House allocated $25.4 billion to NASA in its federal budget request for fiscal year 2025, which was released today (March 11). That's a 2% increase over the $24.9 billion the agency is getting for fiscal 2024, an amount that was enacted by Congress just last Friday (March 8).
Yea, you would need hundreds of millions of dollars a day and a dedicated staff of artists, wait…NASA has that.
@@darkdakrioadenitis9688 and?
I just wanted to say that I really appreciate how nice you are while debunking. Being rude doesn't help trying to convince people of things. I wish more people would try and be nice when discussing things.
Everyone who makes debunking videos about science deniers start out nice. Speaking to flat earthers is corrosive to one's patience for stupidity.
You’ll find that the majority of sane, science-based debunkers (normal globe believing people) are often the nicest ones in debates and videos…
It’s the flatearthers who swear, scream, insult, ridicule, and generally try to humiliate globers by yelling disgusting profanity at them etc…
That’s the problem ! People who understand science and can read don’t need to throw around disgraceful language and horrendous behaviour to show we are right 😉
🌎🌍🌏
I've seen a hundreds of flat earthers and destroyed them, yet no one of them convinced me.
Anyone who has any dealings with the flat earth cult will soon realise being nice gets you nowhere.
Well, some of those degenerates definitely deserve to be insulted.
Nothing is undebunkable for a flat earther. When you’re crazy, nothing is undebunkable.
Use the scientific method, You use Pseudo-Science mumbo jumbo and fantasy!
Reckon you've seen 1 toooo many Star Trek and star wars film!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@morpheus2913 Predict a single celestial phenomenon with your model. You and your community of truth knowers have yet to predict one. In this regard its infinity to zero globists to flerfers.
@@nathanhensinger6645
Heres a simple celestial question for you...
As it is a well established fact that nothing can be measured without a single fixed point of reference...
How was it possible to measure anything if everything in the heliocentric model is supposedly moving...
Earth allaged rotation 1k mph
Earth alleged speed 66.6k mph
Sun alleged speed 500k+ mph
So what fixed point did your priests of Psuedo-Science use to measure all thet satanic numbers crap with???
And do not say its not satanic because 666 comes up way..... Too much for it NOT to be!
@@nathanhensinger6645 infinity is a fantasy number.
@rondarstak8602 Study up on calculus. Your statement shows you know little about math.
I have to play devil's advocate for a moment. If somebody with enough time and money wanted to create software that could export one of these RAW files without needing the actual camera, it could totally be done. Just because no consumer software can do that at the moment, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That being said, obviously I don't think these are fake. I'm just saying, I wouldn't say it is impossible to fake them either.
Yeah, it's probably possible to pay off canon to get their exact encoding scheme... Still pretty much impossible to fake tho...
exiftool can edit metadata from .NEF files.
To fake all of NASA's photos/videos, it would cost FAR more than their budget and include massive teams of artists. Flerfers believe you just click a few buttons and bam, perfect image appears.
Yes you are correct. The Flerf's just say CGI but they have no idea how much work and time goes into making just a few seconds of CGI for a movie.
@@robbarton7972ou can see the guy’s fingers droop for a couple frames as his hand impacts the iPad, showing his hand hit a real object and not a CGI object.
Nothing is un-debunkable to a flat earther. Once they have gone through the 5 stages of grief trying to come up with reasons for why something is fake, there is the ultimate "Nu Uh" - which debunks everything.
As an aside, it seems, to me, that many flat earthers are stuck at the Angry stage.
CC would fall into that category.
I was going to reply before I finished reading your comment that they never seem to get out of the angry stage lol
The sunrise and sunset is enough to debunk flat Earth, and they have no problems lying about what they actually see: “the sub gradually fades into a tiny dot” or “perspective” or even “buoyancy”. When I ask why the lower half of the sun gets blocked during a sunset (and what’s blocking it?), I get ghosted.
I don't even know why you'd want to believe that silliness.
They’ll still say it’s fake. they don’t debunk, they deny.
But they CALL and THINK of it AS de-bunking, more's the pity...
@@DanMortensonthey really don't think they just assume they're right because they can't comprehend it.
With lots of time, they still can fly a camera down in Australia and show us they’re driving upside down and being held up by gravity. Please brother, you’re being fooled just like the American election system. Go bend a knee to your masters. 😂
This is NASA and Disney working together showcasing the next level CGI which will be rolled out in up coming years.
@@armondtanz But some of the footage is 10 + years old!
This has become one of my favourite channels over the past month. Your non-aggressive debunking is such a joy to watch and I also get to learn a bunch about cameras and how fascinating they can be. Keep up the great work!
There's a bit of a misconception here about RAW files. They can in principle be edited (in fact, people edit metadata of RAW files commonly). The fact Photoshop doesn't mess with them isn't proof positive that no software can.
But yeah, it's a good channel.
@@tomaszwota1465 One of the benefits of a raw file (NEF in the case of Nikon) is that as you process the raw data into a viewable image, the raw data remains unchanged. So the output from the manipulation of the NEF data must be saved in a different file form (tiff, jpeg, etc.) and the original raw file remains intact and unchanged.
altering metadata is a different thing, really..
@@tomaszwota1465 I see what you're saying about "in principle" raw files being edited if you include their metadata but metadata doesn't affect the image data contained within a raw file, and what is meant when we say raw files can't be "edited."
@@_JeffMart Raw image data can also be edited. What exactly stands in the way of doing so?
@@crckdns Yes, but that's not an inherent limitation. You can just edit the raw data in that NEF or save the edited version to a new NEF/RAW format. Nothing is stopping you - data is data - it's just that it's not something people working with these files deem useful.
You WANT to keep the RAW file in it's original state because that's the _function_ of a _raw_ file. Not because it cannot be done, but because it's useful to NOT do that.
I've seen a LOT of comments where people are completely missing the point. I'm a 20-year software engineer, and yes, we all know that files can be edited. We all know that even encrypted .bin files can be cracked. We all know that no file format is "safe" from those of us with enough reason and time. The point that Dave is making when he says these are impossible to fake is that the work that would be involved to create a file with this much sensor data, that has no flaws, whose details can be scrutinized so closely, and who light values can be changed to reveal various details, would take an ENORMOUS amount of time to create. And that's just ONE file. To create the thousands that would all have to be generated individually with the exact "next frame" details would be mind-bogglingly difficult. I'm not aware of any software in existence today that can generate CGI good enough to hold up to this kind of scrutiny. And forget about doing this shit by hand. Not happening AT ALL.
So calm down, software people. We know you can create and edit these files given enough time. But if you really think you are editing them to this level of realism, or even worse, generating them from scratch with this level of detail, you are treading close to being in the realm of the flat earthers.
Exactly.
If you claim it can be faked, repeat it. Create the Thousands of photo's that Exactly match the lighting, texture, reflections, weather etc, etc that Exactly match reality of the Earth at the time of the photo...
See you in 10 years or so...
Also, if the content was indeed fake, they could have achieved substantial cost savings by not making every frame available for download in RAW format.
Even if they were faked, the amount of time it would take to make these photos manually would mean it's unlikely the cloud formations on the earth would line up exactly with where the weather is being tracked on the given day and time and position the photos were taken.
I totally agree with you there.
Absolutely true, BUT... these people think that because something might theoretically be possible, then that's exactly what they're doing.
They'll ignore silly questions like "why would NASA bother doing all that".
The most undebunkable thing I've ever seen is from the 2022 Tonga volcano eruption. It caused a pressure wave to circle the Earth.
My amateur weather station in my back garden picked it up from 16,000 km away after 14 hours. It also picked up the pressure wave coming from the other direction a few hours later.
On the app the weather station is connected to you can view other people's weather stations. Every single one of them I checked picked up the pressure wave at an appropriate time based on their distance from Tonga.
So either every single amateur weather station on Earth was compromised by Big Globe... or we live on a spinning ball.
A angry spinning ball ;)
Damn! Now THAT's cool as heck!
A flattard would argue that the shockwave bounced from the ice wall or the glass dome
Very cool info, but yeah, they will still deny it and claim its compromised/faked data. At this point, the number of people that would have to be "in on it" in regards to a globe conspiracy is mindboggling.
Networked observing is awesome. :)
Why cant there be a flat earth CGI? Their absolute BEST attempt looks like a first graders paper mobile
THAN bring me one proof for a globe, fast spinning water curving space crossing ball, one will do. Here you've got 200 proves for the FLAT EARTH, can you count, sheep believing in a non proven 500 year old theory are sick!
ua-cam.com/video/N9CQPMOzeRs/v-deo.html
Why do that when there are 9,494 satelties in orbit yet we don't have a cable TV channel broadcasting the rotation of the earth 24/7
@@TutankhamaruCapacwe actually do
@@TutankhamaruCapacring laser gyroscope measure and detect the earth s rotation
Because no one is funding it. Those who think that the earth is not a sphere do not have the same opportunities that the brainwashers of the entire population of the flat earth have.
Setting aside the whole flat earth thing, it’s still really cool to see stuff done by NASA presented and explained. I always learn something from your videos. Thank you!
video footage of na$a faking $pace, maybe you'll learn something if you analyze it:
/watch?v=qqNFr-Z4Gbw
If we're being honest these videos are NEVER intended for flat earthers because this is even more pointless than arguing to a wall which in addition constantly cusses and spits at you. These videos are made for people who know the Earth is a globe but wanna learn more about space, spaceflight, photography, geography and so much more which stems from these explanations
Yeah that's what I'm here for, to learn fun stuff about space and cameras. Who cares what flat earthers think, I don't think most of them believe it themselves, they just like to argue on the internet.
@@mihan2dI respectfully disagree. I think Dave actually does want to educate flat earthers, unlike others such as SciManDan who seem to mostly enjoy insulting people. I really appreciate that Dave (mostly) refrains from personal jabs.
@@truthsmiles Well SciManDan pisses me off too because when I saw his videos I was hoping he would explain the phenomenons in question but instead all he did was to stoop to their level and start barking. Nowadays his content is a bit more educational but still miles behind Dave's content anyway. As for Dave, he can only educate people who WANT to learn something as opposed to flerfs who ACTIVELY shut themselves off from any new information. That might work on gullible people who are on the fence though.
I'm a CS major. We actually had a course on image processing. While it is true that conventional software doesn't allow saving to a new falsely raw file, it doesn't mean that it's impossible to either edit it with your own solution or by creating a plugin for any software of your choice. Having raw files is very compelling and I personally agree that it's too much effort to fake them, but it's not impossible like you claim. Data is just that - data. Unless the manufacturer has taken significant steps towards anti-tampering encryption measures, you can modify the file with just a little know-how.
The thing is even if those files had some cryptographic signature to validate their authenticity, it would still not be enough for most flat earthers, because maybe the evil cabal who makes these images know the details on how to sign their fabricated files. It'll never end.
I have little doubt that someone has already written such software for data recovery purposes.
@@flecks_piano oh, yeah, for sure! I'm just speaking to the argument's validity, not how to convince the unconvincable, lol.
My thought exactly. It would not be beyond the NSA or agencies in other governments to make raw files from scratch. It may be difficult, but you know that Big Globe (TM) will do anything to make the sheeple believe the lie. No amount of evidence will convince the vast majority of those who know THE TRUTH that they are wrong but one can keep trying.
I agree on that, the thought of : Raw cant be edited because main software cant do it.
As a professional that has worked on some of the largest VFX projects in the world, including some that attempted to recreate space in very high fidelity, I have to say that if anyone thinks Hollywood can recreate this level of detail, they are SORELY mistaken.
I'm only an amateur 3D artist playing around with Blender, but you're going to have to break that one down for me. I'll agree up front that faking true RAW pictures is very hard if not impossible (at least I have no idea how to fake that). Not because of the file format or the meta data, but because 3D renderers bake in the white balance, colour space etc.
I feel like the level of detail in the pictures and the reflections and stuff are totally doable though. You'd need a couple of really good shader experts and a monster of a render farm to get those pictures rendered in a reasonable time, but it's possible. Gravity was pretty much there. All this would need in that respect is higher res textures and all of those tiny details can be done procedurally (that's what you're paying your shader experts for right?), but this would essentially be a single scene at a very low framerate.
@@Hugh.Manatee If you tried to model space and zero gravity, without people, is one thing, but once you try combining the real and the 'fake', such as people flying around and interacting with things, is where it becomes neigh on impossible. There will always be some inconsistency that will be able to be scrutinized, because even technology of today is very far from perfect.
Were you the janitor on these projects? 🤔
A supernatural ability of NASA to fake footage is a least implausible part of the theory.
@@C4... Haha, the nice thing about the internet is we don’t have to reveal who we are, but you will find me on the credit of both Gravity and The Martian, for those who know it’s already enough to tell who I am ;)
You could send them into space and they’ll say they’re still on earth in a studio and everything they see out the window is CGI.
When I was more conspiracy inclined years ago, this would not have convinced me. It would be too technical, things I would not have knowledge of, and I would simply think "well you say you can't save raw files, but they might have some means of doing that anyway".
So I don't think you'll ever convince somebody totally lost in conspiracy land. There's always something that's not 100% provable and they'll latch onto that.
But all evidence might stack up for the not totally lost, and will prevent them from being so. One can hope
Exactly. The enemy is always insanely advanced and has unlimited resources, but the enemy is also obsessed with sticking in weird upside down messages and are making elementary "errors" even a student wouldn't make. Someone without any experience can always sit atop Mount Dunning-Kruger and pretend to be an expert.
People can be reasoned out of positions they are not reasoned into, it happens all the time: flat earth, religion, cults, etc.
People who are being scammed will often get angry at the person who proves they are being scammed.
Not a flerf just curious, is it possible that an edited file is "formatted"(not sure what the right word can be used here) with the same name as the raw file?
@@notjeff7833 it's entirely possible to generate any file of any extension provided you know how they are encoded, and as far as I understand .nef files have a pretty well known encoding and it wouldn't be far-fetch that one could write some software to generate one from a fabricated image.
It would be some insanely complicated work to generate these thousands of images with the window smudges and the dead pixels and very realistic depictions of a globe earth, but definitely not impossible.
Normal people:
Makes good sense.
Flat earthers:
Very simple. NASA makes the website, they can write the EXIF data them selves and edit the EXIF on the files...
And then after NASA faked the photographs, they arranged for the weather across the surface in every country to line up with the cloud formations, dust density, forest fires, nighttime traffic and pollution depicted in the faked photographs. Down to day, hour, minute and the second. But when you're faking a space mission, that's the effort you have to commit. They mastered it faking the moon landing: there would be a fake painted Earth visible in certain photographs, and to make the illusion seamless, NASA would then arrange later that the weather across the entire real Earth would mimic perfectly the fake painting at exactly the right time.
Flat Earthers don't work in facts. Bill Murray once said a quote “It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.” Fits them perfectly.
It’s probably easier to make a real ISS than to fake all these photos and videos with such consistency and precision
not probably... for sure
Good point!
Easier to actually go to the Moon to fake the footage than fake it in a studio.
Mitchell & Webb
Yes, the hours and time it would take to do is not consistent with them uploading 24 /7 people think cgi is made quick. No it isn’t it takes ages to do small bits. That’s why movies and shows take so long to film. To get so much cgi footage out all the time everyday would be so expensive. Ok so they would probly say oh NASA is is rich. But the time thing they could not prove because to do what they do it would take a bunch of speed of light magicians to produce that cgi every minute of every day! It can’t be done. We are not that advanced. They are taking as gospel the bible which was written by men in a patriarchal society. Jesus and God would be horrified about the things so called religious people have done in their name. Its ridiculous. People need to read Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsh. Interesting books.
exactly, why go through all that trouble just to fake it? If it was all fake shouldnt have needed to do any of that in the first place.... we never went to the moon for as long as we have been around, why now? because we have rockets? then they are acknkowledging that it IS actually possible because we have rockets lol
I tried looking at the world through the flat earthers point of view, but I just couldn't get my head that far up my ass.
With lots of time, they still can fly a camera down in Australia and show us they’re driving upside down and being held up by gravity. Please brother, you’re being fooled just like the American election system. Go bend a knee to your masters. 😂
try harder🤣🤣🤣
😂😂😂😂😂😂
because they don't believe in asscheeks because asscheeks are round
You have a better chance of getting your head around the U-bend of your toilet than getting your head around Flat Earth logic.
I like how your dog thinks you're talking to yourself and is trying to comfort you. "My poor humans mental illness is acting up again."
😂
I bet that dog suffers from severe seperation anxiety when he walks out the door.
"But it's a fisheye lens!"
"No it's not. The file gives the lens it was using. That lens is rectilinear. Also, the straight arms of the Crane in the foreground would also be curving, not just the Earth, if that lens was fisheye"
"BUT MUH SPACE PIZZA DELUSION PANTOMIME CHARADE!"
NOTE: I am not a flat earther, BUT:
Did you know that you can edit the metadata of an image manually?
@@ChillaxeMake Yeah of course you can. My point about the arms of the crane being curved as well as the Earth if the lens was wide angle still stands though
@@MightyMattTMHis point was about messing with any part of the data including visual so straightened cranes and the likes are toddler level computing. Don't need to be Spielberg to curve a straight line ethier.
@@whyter11 *_"toddler level computing"_*
I think that's a little extreme. How long have you been programming for to make such an expert opinion? What languages do you program in? I started with BASIC on the TRS 80 but most recently I've been using Rust and there have been an alphabet of languages in between from procedural, to object oriented, to functional.
@@whyter11 " so straightened cranes and the likes are toddler level computing" Ok, so do it and show us. Take a photo of something flat with two other straight lines crossing in front of it with a fisheye lens, and edit the two crossing lines to be straight while the background stays curved.
I have to thank flat earthers for making this video necessary. I would never have come across these files, let alone seen the amazing detail in the reflection in the window of the dragon without them giving someone like Dave the motivation. And that was such an amazing moment that I am very grateful to have experienced. Even more thanks to Dave, of course, for the work and time he put in.
Bet you £1000 your vaccinated lol Incapable of critical thinking and preferring the comfort of being TOLD what the truth is rather than invest time and energy in finding things out for yourself 😂
I concur. I’ve learned so much about astronomy and physics falling down the flat earth rabbit hole. These types of videos have renewed my interest in science.
Those files are great
CGI >>
EVER WATCHED A HOLLYWOOD SCI-FI MOVIE
@@christendomdefenderbeready3251 NEF ever taken a raw photo from camera
There is a much deeper reason why flat earthers can't admit that they are wrong.
mental illness.
I have reached a point in this continuing saga where I am thoroughly convinced that if you took a flat earther into space, then on a spacewalk... They would happily remove their helmet to prove you were faking it
Several flerfs have stated that even if someone took them so space, they would assume that they were drugged or something like that.
no youd take yours off cuz nasa told you there was oxygen there
@@yupok318 which is weird, because they say the opposite...
But hey, gotta lie to flerf.
@@Alysm-Aviation nasa claims that the moon is within the brand new improved atmosphere
@@yupok318 the fact that you bring this up surely means you also looked up the amount of air that is present at that height...
Oh wait, you're a flerf, of course you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't attempt to strawman the globe.
Once a person is emotionally and sometimes financially invested in an idea, no amount of evidence can be presented that will change their mind.
Precisely. The "Sunk Cost" Fallacy is rampant in that space.
Exactly, that's why they start the ball earth propaganda on children early. Look how many of you still can't break free from it.
Just like the Holobunga
religion comes to mind
@@Reprint001
pretty much! when sheople don't *KNOW* they 'believe' whatever they're told to believe
If you took a flat earther into space and let them see a globe earth with their own eyes, they would still say it was fake, keep it up guys, pure comedy gold 🤣
Theyll say nasa installed fisheye lenses in their eyes
Correct --- they even try to debunk their own videos when their experiments prove the earth is not flat but a rotating sphere (Thanks Bob, rest his soul" ... "Thanks Jeran.").
I believe that's a generalization. The people who refused such flat out evidence are either in shock or they are mentally ill and may require medical assistance. I believe you can sway a good number of people and I think the idea of flat earth may just kinda go away once/if space flight is a regular thing like driving a car.
Perhaps they should do that? How many flat earthers have shot themselves into the air and died doing that so far I wonder?
It's like the anti vaxxers, they did studies, and many people who already believed vaccines caused autism, when faced with the facts, research, trials, everything, often times only doubled down, and even believed more into their own theory, since in their mind, everyone is in on it, and the person trying to debunk your claims is just a cog in the machine.
_"PhoTosHoP, HOaX, CGI!"_
Flatearthers will undoubtedly overestimate the potential of computer graphics.
yeah, the Flash movie is a real example of that
flat earthers are the definition of: "source: trust me bro"
Or "Do your own research" by watching other flat earthers 😆
@@bullwyrk they sit in an echo chamber
@@bullwyrk "do your own research" proponents are often the worst at doing their own research because they had an idiot, themselves, teach them how to research.
@@RandomRothbardian 😂 hope they stay there so we can have more content
Gravity is real. Source : trust me bro
We already said farewell to flat earth when sunsets were discovered
I'm still waiting for them to explain 24 hours day light simultaneously at both North and South poles on the equinox.
@SpazzyMcKenzie On the day of the equinox both poles will have the sun at the horizon and going around ,then one will observe it get below while the other will observe 24hours sunlight for almost 6 months
Study the Law of Perspective
@@darkdakrioadenitis9688 already did. It says perspective can’t physically obstruct things
. and that it should decrease angular size.
@@Proto34-w2r atmospheric lensing
This video is fake. You can tell because from 5:20 onward, there's a distinct lack of dog on the armchair.
Dog came back at the end. Globe earth verified.
he forgot to cgi it in smh
Nikon starts with an N, so does NASA. Clearly they are in cahoots!
But the Earth is still dong shaped.
You over-estimate their critical thinking abilities.
"They faked the metadata!"
Easy debunk in their flat minds.
It takes a village, and you have definitely earned your place in the Flat Earth debunking community with accessible articulation. I appreciate that you bring fresh angles to things that we've heard covered for years. The time you invest is evident, and we thank you!
The dragon window reflection is some of the greatest data most would not have noticed. Great work.
haha 70th
great work of satan
THAN bring me one proof for a globe, fast spinning water curving space crossing ball, one will do. Here you've got 200 proves for the FLAT EARTH, can you count, sheep believing in a non proven 500 year old theory are sick!
ua-cam.com/video/N9CQPMOzeRs/v-deo.html
While normally I'd agree with everything you say, as a software engineer, I can say it's quite likely that the engineers at Nikon, Sony, etc, have software that can create those types of raw files because that's how they'd test making firmware for the cameras. Technically it is likely someone has software - and if a powerful organization wanted to lie about something they could potentially either buy the software from the company in some capacity or have a software engineer develop it themselves. It depends on how persuasive the government organization is willing to be... But the reality remains, no matter what proof you offer, it will be refuted - either intelligently or not. Usually just with a very ignorant response - like, "It's all fake and lies and you're not my real dad."
Same thing I commented myself. I delved into image processing and saying it's impossible to create a NEF file was a little funny to me.
Yep, made the same point. Claiming that it's "impossible" is going off the deep end. Nothing impossible about saving to a NEF - cameras do it all the time.
@SpazzyMcKenzie "Obviously Nikon are in on the conspiracy!"
Yeah, but they make the flerf weapon camera of choice, so no.
@@ReValveiT_01 r/Woooosh
Couldn’t they just use existing NEF files for that? I’m sure they’d have a few lying around.
You could imagine continuously rendering all of this stuff to doctored RAW files… but that would be an implausibly large and expensive operation, requiring a huge amount of attention to detail across many technical fields, with little room for error, all to just be uploaded on some dinky corner of the NASA website. This project alone would be a massive undertaking, but combined with all the other stuff they’d need to be juggling it seems pretty far-fetched compared to just sticking a camera on the ISS.
The problem is: Flatearthers have totally different opinions about what is "implausible" and "far-fetched" than normal people. :D
I can completely picture how to do this in a relatively quick manner using Blender for the base models, noise filters in photoshop with a random element added to add the slight shifts, etc. Automation could make it happen and it's a lot easier with a lot less resources than you might think (relatively speaking.)
They didn't, but It can be done - now. The old IMAX film footage from the Shuttle missions would actually be more convincing to me, if I actually needed any convincing.
@@kstricland then someone notices your rendered clouds wouldn't line up with the recorded ones at thar location and time
@@kstricl i think you underestimate something here. The light, shadows and movements of clouds need to be exactly the same corrrelated to Earth. So this cannot be done in a procedural manner. Which skyrockets the effort to Infinity. If a 1000+ plus Photos have to be hand crafted people will mess up and there will be inconsistencies.
@@Juice-chan how many people would even bother trying to match it up? Plus, if clouds are just a hologram, NASA already has the cloud data 😜
They will still say its CGI though...
Unfortunately, most flat earthers know little to nothing about advanced CGI animation. They have no idea that there is no animation studio or animator alive in this world that could render that video. They don't know how hard particles are to simulate. They don't know how hard real life illumination is to simulate. They don't know how hard textures are to simulate. They don't even know how hard making that sun lens effect is.
They simultaneously see the limits of cgi when they go see a movie, and believe that videos multiple times more complex, detailed, and long, could be done with the same methods.
Dude, it takes a studio YEARS to make the "money shot" for most movies.
And you think they can pull off a live feed 24/7 of an even greater quality? Are you nuts? A single second of that video would take hours to process, how the hell does that work?
Why am I even asking, most flat earthers are pretty deep into conspiracies, they probably believe in government time travel, aliens, and reptilian stuff... they'll probably argue that they have "better computers" and feel convinced...
Don’t forget that they don’t even understand that cgi even takes time. There have been livestreams from the ISS, both from the inside and outside. And they just say it’s people animating it in real time lmao. They are brain-broken, and their lack of belief in basic truth won’t be fixed by showing them evidence they are wrong. It’s a more personal issue I think.
Yep. For flat Earthers, CGI is just another kind of magic, along with their "flerspective" and "flerfraction".
Let's be honest flat earthers are so diluted in there beliefs that if given a chance to go directly to space for free they will just say it was faked in a studio because they weren't allowed to exit the space craft.
The word you were looking for was "deluded" rather than "diluted"
You could take a flat earther to the space station and let them look out of the window and they would still come up with an excuse to “explain” why it’s fake.
Nah bro, the government just used a magic gas’s to make them dream getting on the ship and now the window is just a TV screen, duh.
@@colixartbreak it lol
Your condescending attitude doesn't help anyone! Besides it being totally illogical
No I would not.
I predict the flerf will deploy the failsafe "nuh-uh" response.
Oh you and your facts again! They are easily debunked by saying "NUH-UH!" repeatedly and loudly, just you wait.
They've already begun 😁
@@DaveMcKeegan I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you! I guess that next you'll go on about water being wet 🤣
"Nuh uh" - Flat earther rebuttal
A few people have touched on or asked about this, so as a bona fide programmer I'm going to elaborate. I don't doubt that most, if not all, photo editing programs do not provide the option to save in a raw format because that really doesn't make much sense. If you changed the image, it's not "raw" any more, is it? Also, since every manufacturer's raw file format is unique it's already a ton of work to develop the import code, never mind the export code. Manufacturers may also limit by contract what can be done by applications that work with their raw files.
But there is nothing special about raw files. It's 100% possible to write an export plugin that would emit a valid raw file.
That being said, I would fully expect that unless the generated images were created with extreme detail and a certain amount of noise, that it would be possible to detect a fabricated or edited raw image.
Yeah, even cryptographically signed RAW files identifying the originating camera (and timestamp, etc) could be faked by an organization that had access to the (putative) private key in the camera.
I mean, people willing to believe in a pointless, centuries-long, world-wide conspiracy involving complete cooperation among millions of people and opposing militaries will truly find no bridge too far to protect their fragile egos.
Dave planted a big red target on himself with that one. Flerfers will make 15 videos on "Globe DEBUNKED photographer DOESN'T KNOW how CAMERAS WORK!", lol.
@@tomaszwota1465 While I'm sure flat earthers will find some way to misunderstand this video, what Dave said is, AFAICT, valid as far as cameras and commercial editing software goes.
My point is that while lack of utility, cost and/or contractual obligations may explain why the software doesn't exist, that doesn't mean it CAN'T exist.
Additionally, because of all the extra detail contained in a raw file I suspect that it would be easier to detect a "modified raw" than a modified jpeg.
@@zar3434 Agreed. I made the same point.
Plus, there are tools to modify RAW metadata.
No real problem editing the image data either. As you know - it's not magic, it's just data. Just ones and zeroes. You can edit it no problem (grab a hex editor and try) - doing so in a way to be hard to be recognized by an expert (or, even by an amateur user that can investigate the file in a RAW image reader and play around with the sliders) wouldn't be that easy. But one can imagine a Photoshop plugin that would allow you to play with the sliders as well as use all the power of that software to modify the image data.
May have to be more involved than a plugin, but nothing stands in the way of writing such software.
@@tomaszwota1465 (edited) Actually, if the camera was to cryptographically sign the raw you couldn't edit it in place as the signature would fail, and the signature can't be regenerated as the private key is unknown. I did a quick google and some cameras do this, but older cameras used proprietary algorithms that have since been cracked. It looks like there may now be an initiative to develop a signature standard. I'm sure @DaveMcKeegan could shed more light on this.
If the technology existed to do what they're claiming Disney would have an entire theme park based on it
Wernher von Braun worked closely with Walt Disney to produce some children's cartoons. We are given dumbed down tech. Esoteric knowledge exists.
I think for this a collab with the corridor crew would be perfect. They have the perfect skillset to point out things that are impossible to fake
I was thinking this too. They already have a few videos about supposed UFO videos. It wouldn't exactly be outside their wheelhouse to look at flat earth "evidence" and provide their insight on whether it may or may not be visual effects.
That said, I could understand if they wouldn't want to weigh in on this subject. After all, UFO's videos _could be_ real. Flat Earth... not so much. Having such a high profile channel focus on Flat Earth might actually provide more exposure for the theory than they would want.
Awesome collab idea!
Maybe we should just let them have their flat earth. Then tell them to keep walking west. With any luck they’ll fall of the bloody edge.
That’s one explanation. However, as a confirmed flat-earther I would put forward an alternative explanation that I once overheard from a bloke in the pub which is that NASA have a room in area 51 where they use oalien technology to clone an infinite number of monkeys who they then train to produce each of the raw files, pixel by pixel using crayon.
"my source is i made it tf up"
I believe that even if you took a flat earther on a rocket to the ISS and lead them on a tour throughout it, they would just claim that they had been drugged and could not confirm their experience.
schizophrenia and paranoia, thats all they got
let them out on a space walk and they can undo their helmet - proof and problem solved at the same time!
@@ancipitalprobably also make survival of the fittest😂
@@punguru1360 or survival of the less stupid!!!
They’d probably be disappointed at not being “probed”
Flat earthers are not going to understand any of that so the only possible response will be:--- IT'S FAKE. Then dismiss it.
As expected
They have an ace up their sleeve: they'll say Satan used magic to fake it.
Easy to debunk, just the usual MO;
"Its so technical, I dont understand... therefore: Its fake"
(Wonderful video, BDW. As always:-))
That’s denying, not debunking. A debunk requires logical reasoning, something flerfers are incapable of
@@mjelves everything about the globe is undebunkable, but we're dealing with flerfs so we have to use language that they think they understand (even if they don't)
Digital cameras are fake, too.
Computers are fake.
You're fake.
I'm fake.
Lol
To be fair, no file format is impossible to reproduce. The fact that no editing software you know of doesn't have the capability to save as the new format doesn't mean one couldn't come up with a piece of software to do that. The format has standards of some kind, otherwise it would be unreadable by any editing software. Once you know the standards, then you could write custom software to do whatever you want to replicate whatever you want with that format.
That being said, it is likely a monumental undertaking [multiple years with a team of people imho] to reproduce all of those elements with that level of detail in the raw files. I would question just why anyone would ever go through the trouble when it would be simple enough to say "Hey, we don't save the raw files because of storage limitations in the IIS."
Good point! It's also no secret that the government are years ahead of the general public in terms of technology. Esoteric knowledge exists.
I love how flat earthers think CGI is really simple to do. Usually those types of movies, like say Avatar, take months if not years to create. So they think NASA is pumping these out daily or weekly??!! LMAO!! THAT is impossible.
BILLIONS OF BUDGET FROM YOUR POCKET! NASA used AI to control satellite balloons since 70s! Other space agencies? Never heard of them! Satellite images of earth surface - its planes, bruh!
@@Alpha___00 i feel sad for you
Flerfs just love an argument, even if they are wrong, they will just go with it and stick to their guns.....
Oh and NUH UH
"What should we call our version of RAW?"
Dyslexic working at Canon: "ARW."
lol yeah
So clear and well presented. I love watching your videos, I always learn new things about the science of photography.
As an amateur astronomer I use the space station orbiting times to not get it in my view, it’s possible to see it with binoculars or even a basic scope.
Flat earthers say its either a plane, or some kind of a holorgram being projected across the sky. They dont even believe their own eyes when they see something for themselves
@@Salamandra40k Yes they do really talk rubbish. You really couldn’t make it up, but they constantly do.😆😂😆
@@tonib5899 I wonder how many of them will be 'converted' in the USA at this upcoming total solar eclipse on April 8.
@@OutrageHarvester Plenty is my guess. 😂😂👍
@@OutrageHarvesterwow already the last eclipse is the one that debunked globe for me lol cant wait for the 8th of april
As much as I love the technical presentation, my main enjoyment of your videos comes from watching how much your dog insists on being petted. :)
I take this as a challenge (as a non flat earther) to try and poke holes in this, so here we go!
First off, while it is practically impossible to create a face NEF image (assuming NASA don't have any access to Nikon internal software) it is trivial to edit the metadata of the file (exiftool can do it pretty easily, for example I changed the lens information of a file as a test)
so that doesn't eliminate the possibility of a miniature.
And second, why is there the assumption that NASA does not have access to Nikon's internal software? In the flat earther world Nikon is just another company trying to trick us, why would they not help out NASA in converting, say, exr files to NEF, then just applying the correct metadata?
While it counts as proof, it is absolutely not "Undebunkable photographic proof"
You underestimate these flat Earthers, But let's face it a hollow Earth is more believable than a flat Earth.
that's not exactly a high bar to clear.
They’re just gonna say it’s fake... like they always do....
I talked to a flat earther the other day in NY. I’m a pilot, I’ve seen the curvature at 50000 feet above the globe. He said it’s parallax error or curvature of the window. Our windows are flat, unlike the earth.
He actually believed there is an ice wall keeping the water from falling of the edge. How can you debate someone like that?
What about sunlight in Europe when it’s night in America…
I asked him if he’s joking- but he was 100% serious.
Yep. Debate is only possible with those who value reason and observation above belief.
When flat earthers claim that windows would cause the horizon to be curved, they never take into account that in that case the windows should distort the view already when the aircraft is still on the ground, which doesn't happen. For example, Wolfie6020 made a video where he tested this thing in his aircraft and showed that windows didn't cause distortions. But flat earthers basically just ignored the test.
@@mikep9604 Yep. What other option do flat Earthers have, when confronted with such obvious evidence?
It seems flat earthers have never heard of Occam’s Razor. Nobody would go through all the hoops to fake is ISS the way flat earthers describe it.
Or the Dunning Kruger effect for that matter
They do know of it, but they twist it to suit their own foolish needs. They think Occam's Razor reveals that "flat Earth is self-evident but globe Earth is extremely well-faked" - I'm obviously paraphrasing some comments I've seen here and there - when, in truth, every single explanation is so far away from the simplest explanation that it should be the opposite of Occam's Razor, and instead of leading to an explanation, it should lead to further complications in a never-ending spiral staircase of mental Olympics.
L.E.O could debunk this in his sleep.
All he has to say is, Dear oh dear, scientifically impossible, and clown show, and I'm sold.
Hook line and sinker. 🤣🤣
Before anyone gets the wrong idea, the above was an attempt at humour.
Okay? 😉
Haha as above so below.low orbit
Nothing new under the sun eh!
Funnily enough, it would actually cost more to fake all of NASA's footage than it currently costs them to shoot it for real.
What absolute lies!
Especially since 80% of all earth's finaltial resources would be spent on maintaning such a giant hoax, paying payrolls for people to pretend etc.
No one in their right mind believes the Earth is flat, but we going to spend billions of dollars and tens of thousands of man-hours creating footage to try and deceive flerfers? Makes perfect sense…
why aren't there any comments to man hours and money they would have to spend....why all that just to make you believe argue why --whats the point to make it round maybe they aren't and can't do and don't have $$$ to falsify :: Maybe it is round hmmmm. Oh watch all those record braking altitude mig jets flying very high Russia don't give a sh__ about conveniencing you it's round. It Is ROUND
Sadly, like many spherical earth proofs this was incredibly well done, well presented and it will be dismissed as "cgi" or go right over their heads
Unfortunately, you are right there. But maybe some flerfs may some day come to believe that the earth is indeed round just like all the other planets and stars out there in space.
But as they probably will never go into outer space, they will keep believing in a reality that conforms to their emotional needs for the time being.
Yup. It sure will go "right over their heads"... just like the ISS does several times per day.
....the problem here is not the logic or the intelligent reasoning, it's that we are not dealing with logical, reasonable people but with a form of mental illness. all of which makes for a really interesting study because all of us (and I mean ALL of us) have thing we believe in that are beyond all reason and logic. It's all to do with levels of insanity.
@@cspace1234nz so I had to live all my life with catholichs muslims jews hel even budhists, with ranges of people from useless to impecable, and allways respected them... now because you refuse to understand we have been lied to, I have some mental illness... kay I guess. Gl.
It is dismissed by Nasa
www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88104main_H-1391.pdf
From Nasa themselves, I'll help you out - page 112
Dave you the man! I considered messaging you to look into the pictures of the fires in Greece taken from the ISS. Thanks as always for the content!
Trying to convince flat earthers their wrong is like climbing Everest naked in one hour.
So not impossible? 😉
Everest is the stage name of my stripper girlfriend..
@@DaveMcKeegan LMAO
@@DaveMcKeegan 🤣🤣🤣
I've already seen a flerf not watch the video before debunking
Do you think that LEO will enjoy it?
What channel has debunked this video already?
Tosh
Dave, you're my favourite flat earth debunker on UA-cam. You use facts and reason without being condescending. And I've learnt so much watching your videos these last few months. Great educational content.
Nasa disagrees Space might be the final frontier but its made in a Hollywood basement.
www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88104main_H-1391.pdf
From Nasa themselves, I'll help you out - page 112
Doesn’t matter how he explain it🤣😆😂 according to Neil deGrasse Tyson and The science of physics🙄 you simply cannot see the curvature of the Earth nowhere in low earth orbit🤣😆😂 you’re simply still too close to the Earth to even see curvature .. this is a fact of science and physics👍 so no matter how he explain it It’s BUHHH Shi! All 1 million pictures and videos😂🤣😆 Earf flat doG!
@@Hebrew816 Well 👍👍 Sorry mate 👍👍 But i think what you read 😆😆😆😆😆 is absolute rubbish 😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃 I would like to see you provide undeniable evidence 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣that the Earf flat doG!
except he's 100% incorrect
@@PurelyPog Undeniable evidence? According to your pseudoscience belief the earth curves 8 inches after 1 mile😆 so how is it possible to definitely see over 150 miles over the oceans in Hawaii🤣😉 undeniable proof and evidence that the earth is flat or the oceans would’ve curved over after 1 mile ... you can clearly see over 150 miles away proof that the earth is flat🦶. Earf flat doG 😆🤣😘. So now where is your easy proof that the earth is a sphere? Should be simple right? 🤣😘😉 I promise you I will debunk it
There is no particular reason why software couldn't edit raw files. It's just bits stored in memory. It might be complicated, but it's not impossible.
2,300 years ago, in ancient Greece, Eratosthenes proved with tremendous accuracy that our planet Earth was a globe, and nothing else, and back in 1543, Nicolaus Copernicus improved on this fact by conclusively adding that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and ended up being persecuted and intimidated by the Catholic Church in the process, during the infamous inquisition... 🧐
Logical explanations will not faze someone who holds their belief for emotional reasons. Still, this is an awesome, bulletproof video. Very entertaining and informative.
"Faze"...etymology online says: "1830, American English, said to be a variant of Kentish dialect feeze "to frighten, alarm, discomfit" (mid-15c.), from Old English fesian, fysian "drive away, send forth, put to flight," from Proto-Germanic *fausjan (source also of Swedish fösa "drive away," Norwegian föysa). Related: Fazed; fazing. Bartlett (1848) has it as to be in a feeze "in a state of excitement." There also is a nautical verb feaze "to unravel" (a rope), from 1560s."
@stuffyme the funniest part is.. it is those who cling to consensus who have an emotional blind faith and scoff at those who honestly question what we are told.. just as they discarded Maxwells ideas in his time only to later find he was indeed correct, plasma physicists would disagree with your entire worldview if thier funding didn't depend on narratives
They’ll just say nasa has the ability to save files in raw format after editing… cause “reasons”
Just change the extension name to ARW. Easy peasy.
Anyone with a reasonable amount of programming knowledge can figure out to how to save images in NEF or any other RAW format if the owner of the format makes the format spec public knowledge, or indeed if example files can be examined and the format reverse-engineered. If you're a nefarious shape-shifting alien lizard bent on world domination through denying the reality of the Flat Earth (TM), you merely write the outputting routine into your nefarious world-domination CGI modelling software and pay your shills to promote the resulting files as Undeniable Truth (TM).
Oh shit, I can hear the Black Helicopters coming for me!
I truly enjoy your content so much. Very often people are debunking flatearthers in a way where they just go nah-ah, and ask for some additional ridiculous proofs. What you do using your knowledge of photography is just utterly undeniable. (Not for them but maybe you will succeed in making atleast one of them start understanding how crazy their conspiracy really is)
What I’ll never understand about the flat earth nonsense is just why: why would the world governments collude to trick us into thinking the earth is a globe? All other conspiracy theories at least have some sort of purpose to make them plausible. But if the earth were flat, why would anybody lie about that? It would actually make many aspects of life easier.
Because it would prove there was a god or something. They like to think the world can be boiled down into a spiritual battle between good and evil where they are the enlightened heroes of the story. Their real lives are so inadequate that this is the only thing that gives them meaning.
Just a note regarding the raw file request from the NASA website, as we do something similar with large video files at my job. If the files are huge or there are lots of them they are likely being stored in some form of cold storage such as Azure blob storage. Cold storage is cheap, and suited to large data items that are infrequently accessed. Their request process will likely trigger a mechanism that retrieves the file from cold storage into a cache and then allow it to be downloaded from the website.
Yeah they could be in a tape library or something like that. This is what happens if you ask us to restore your server to an earlier backup as it has to connect to the IBM tape library. Obviously that takes some time as there is a physical robotic arm that has to go fetch the correct tape, load it and then the drive scan for the required data. It is a bit quicker if you want to restore a single file or files(s) from one of the incremental backups as those are on hard disks albeit not particularly fast ones, but the full images are sent to tape as they are really good for that kind of bulk sequential work. Also compared to the time needed to copy an entire disk image the access time is pretty minimal.
Sus
It’s still just “here’s this really detailed digital image” that they’d just say “it’s a really good CGI”
Except when it comes to the map they all use to drive around.... they can't even fake one with cgi. smh.
Very well done and informative. Say hi to Rusty - I see he stepped out for a bit - most likely to explore our beautiful earth.
Yea, but the earth is obviously flat just like the universe was actually created last Thursday including all evidence to the contrary.
Not only did I get to learn something about cameras, I also got to see beautiful shots of the earth from the ISS.
Yep
🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪
lol
LOL there is no iss!
I do believe with modern technology, AI, very good AI, this could be faked.
So with that, I would say the best proof is a personal one.
You only need a scale and a weight.
The more accurate the scale the better, the heavier the object, the better
You weigh the object where you live.
Go on vacation closer to the equator and weigh the object again.
The object WILL weigh less due to the rotation of the earth cancelling out the weight of the object.
Always encourage experimentation but there's no "AI" in existence that could fake these raw images.
You try getting any "AI" image generator to do anything remotely close to this and you'd spot that it's artificially generated within a frame or two.
The meta data and ability to literally own these raw files (and so edit the saturation/brightness yourself to see dark regions light up with high clarity) is entirely beyond the capacity of any automated process.
And a manually, hand crafted mock up would demand entirely impractical stage scaling to achieve with no way to fake the depth of field nor lighting, as demonstrated by this video.
Sadly, the vast majority of flerfers are making their own belief up anyway. And the vast majority of what's left aren't going to bother trying to prove it with experimentation that proves the world is a globe. They'll just stick to the usual, easy to debunk nonsense the grifters peddle (the ones who do it to make money).
There is no convincing them. But this type of content (and experimentation) allow actually curious people to quickly realise conspiracy theories are a grift. I remember, very early on in my adult life, when the Internet was quite young, watching a conspiracy theory video about 9/11 and it was extremely convincing. Thankfully, I'm open to curiosity and so allowed myself to absorb the debunk content (over many years) that both tore that (now obviously) fake video apart and also made me aware just how widespread deceptive content, for monetary gain, can be.
One might say it's so widespread that it now reaches across the entire globe...
PS I flew on Concorde when I was 14 (dad worked for British Airways). I actually got to observe the curvature of the earth for myself. My own personal proof. Not that I need it. The sheer level of distrust in literally everything in order to sustain the belief that the earth is not a globe would be unsustainable.
@@StealthBoyElite There's an organization called "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth". They also have demolition experts and airline pilots. There's a video on my channel showing no plane hitting one of the towers.
The most saddening part of the arguments flat earthers use is that it seems to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding( or an inability to understand in some cases) of gravity.
Gravity doesn’t exist . How can you understand something that doesn’t exist?! 🎉
@@SilverCityEnt508 Can you match observations of objects falling due to gravity with any other phenomena? Probably not, but I'd like to see you try.
@@SilverCityEnt508it literally does
@@SilverCityEnt508 false, it does exist.
@@SilverCityEnt508 false, gravity does exist. Your denial doesn’t change that
Man, my question is why hasn't ANY flat earther opt in to try and apply and or go through the training needed to become an astronaut and go into space to see it for themselves. They'd rather keep their butts on earth and continue to raise levels to the horizon in planes or use binos to look at how long and how far of a distance they can see a boat in the water..... Then have the nerve to downplay the complexity of how much work it would take to fake something like this in the way he described. All these calculations they do to prove flat earth but fail to realize the calculations of the size the file or files have to be to be able to incorporate all of those editing details.
Last I checked, a fish eye lens is still not proof or evidence of curvature.
And last I checked, a fish eye lens doesn't have the self awareness to selectively distort some lines but not others ....
@@DaveMcKeegan It's not the lens that distorts some lines but not others, it's the software NASA installs in every camera. Or so I'm told.
Relying on NASA for globe proof is like relying on NIST and the US government to provide the correct account of 9/11.
Ballers love referencing models and calculations.
@@The.Original.Hossman ESA, JAXA, Rosmoscos, CNSA, CSA, ISRO etc etc etc?
@@The.Original.Hossman One sunset shows that the Earth cannot be flat. No NASA necessary. And if you think you can describe the real world without models and calculations, go back to the sand box.
Yes but, you know they will just ignore your fantastic description and presentation of the facts. I have so much respect for you taking time to debunk these people. Great video.
Gilroy, what facts do you speak of?
You do no the aspheric lens is half round right? It's a wide angle lens.
@@coolhawk2003 what the hell are you talking about? Those are useful eyeglasses I have 2020 vision.
@@coolhawk2003 yeah, the fish aid lens you guys use I think the Earth a globe a favor, spend some time in outdoors you’ll see differently
I keep asking the Flat Earth loonies to provide me with photos of the edge of the earth. Still waiting……….
Apparently, they all lied about having a p-900...
There are photos of the ice wall on the internet. Use a search engine and type "ice wall". We're told some of them are glaciers the size of London, lol. It's the wall that contains the waters on flat earth.
Why would nasa and world governments want us to think the world is flat? My best answer to a flat earther is explain sunrise and sunset. It doesn't fit the flat earth model
Come for the flerf roast, stay for the photography lessons. Awesome video!
Enjoy your AI😂😂who cares
Artemis will be even better for the believers. Even if they show wires in the footage, the diehards will edit it out in their head.
Cartoons for adults.
That's a lucky Nikon camera. Such a nice view!
Flat earthers: “the video is fake. I don’t care what they show.”
Also flat earthers: “aliens are real I don’t need to see them to know that.”
🥴