the camera follows the sun at the same rotation speed as the Earth (but in the opposite direction ofcourse) in order to have it basicly stay still on the footage. Since the lightrays keep following mostly the same path, there's very little difference.
@@sofrik9715 You say it's fake based on what? Your intuition or actual evidence? Purely because it does not work with your theory you call it fake? If us, globe Earthers, try to prove that your footage is false, we give evidence, either through math and physics, or through phenomenons which can easily be tested to be impossible or that show obvious editing. (one example is a certain video of a "flat horizon" that have been used by many flat-earthers, even though we tested it's "flatness" with a few straight lines and noticed it to be concave as it goes under the lines. I dont have a link, but you'll probably find this easily with a quick google search)
@@sofrik9715 Ah, ok, my bad. In my defense, there are a lot of idiots here claiming that it is fake, so maybe you could've made it a little clearer? eg. using sArCaSm TeXt
I have already settled the FE vs Globe issue one and for all with 100% verifiable proof that you don't even need to leave your living room to verify. Here is the 100% proof Earth is not a spinning ball: 1) THERE IS NO ZIG-ZAG OF THE SUN WHEN RECORDING A 24 HR TIME LAPSE VIDEO OF THE 24 HR ARCTIC SUN (NORTH OF THE ARCTIC CIRCLE) On a spinning ball Earth, there MUST BE a zig-zag of the Sun above the mountain ranges or horizon. Instead, a 360 circling of the Sun is recorded. Think about this very carefully, and you can even test it with a model by placing a tiny camera on a huge beach ball or weather balloon and put model trees everywhere on top of it, making sure the camera is not on the North Pole axis, but is near, but above, the Arctic Circle. Keep the trees and Sun (light bulb across the room) in the camera's view while recording a full 360 revolution of the ball, and you will record a zig-zag Sun that moves above the trees from left to right, then right to left. It is impossible to record the light bulb making a 360 with the trees all moving continuously in the same direction under the light bulb Sun. 2) THE SUN MUST CHANGE SPEED VERY SIGNIFICANTLY ACROSS THE SKY ABOVE THE MOUNTAINS OR HORIZON IN TIME LAPSE VIDEO ON A BALL EARTH. But it does not. Consistent with a Flat Earth Model, the Sun moves at a constant 15 degrees per hour across the sky. On a ball Earth, recording a time lapse of the Arctic (North) midnight Sun from a position near, but above, the Arctic Circle, starting the recording when your position in the 360 rotation of the ball, where you are standing on a spot that is farthest to the right of the Sun, during the first 2-3 hours of recording, the Sun would appear ALMOST STATIONARY in the sky relative to the mountains or horizon, then after 6 hours, the Sun would appear to be moving 15 deg per hour above the mountains or horizon. Stationary to 15 deg per hour is a HUGE contrasting observed speed change of the Sun's aparrent movement due to the ball Spinning. What we actually record in these times lapse videos is a constant speed of 15 deg per hour, consistent with a Flat Earth model. You can verify this 100% proof that Earth is not a spinning ball by testing with a physical model, or a computer simulation, or even a mental visualization if you are able to carefully model in 3D in your mind.
the second sun was real and imo, about to "set" but a convenient edit cuts the video short so i guess we will never know... is this the only 24hr footage? "you can tell it's real cause it looks so fake, honestly" _nervous giggle and body shift, adjust the tie when you lie, oh shit, this is being filmed, play cool._ *stares creepiest* _i think i just swallowed my tongue quite literally. play cool._ *stares creepiest intensifies* _i need water_ ~a lone, kums
I tried to find the latitude based on how much the Sun's elevation changed during the day, as that will equal the distance from the pole multiplied by 2. After having estimated that the frame is 68° wide and using that as a reference, I found that the Sun's elevation changed by slightly less than 24°, indicating a latitude slightly south of 90 - (24/2) = 78° S. According to the Wiki-article, the latitude of the Scott base is 77° 51' S, so I missed by less than half a degree. Interesting what amateurs can figure out based on just a video if their brains don't suffer from hypoxia by being at the top of Mt. Stupid, isn't it? timnovate.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/dunning-kruger.jpg
Because the camera is pointed at the sun it uses a small aperture to stop the image being frosted out. The smaller aperture you use the more sun rays you'll see. Because the camera is following the sun the rays don't change shape.
You are right. I see it. The rays are super imposed. Small clouds do not affect it when they pass in front. They should. The bright dot for a sun is added too. Color of sun and rays are super imposed and stay the same the whole time and is not realistic.
why would sun rays change? Most of the flaring depends on optics, and direct sun photography is like looking at the sun through binoculars, so the guy uses small aperture and fast shutter speed to not to burn hole in a sensor of a camera. You can try that stuff at home with your phone or whatever. you'll get same results.
If you don't believe this video, then try to explain this. Daylight at tree southern cities december 22 2017: Dunedin, New Zealand: 2.51 dark night. 15.44 daylight. Ushuaia, Argentina: 0.00 dark night. 17.19 daylight. Cape Town, South Africa: 6.05 dark night. 14.25 daylight. (the remaining hours is twilight) Even with a magic shape shifting lampshade around the sun, it is impossible to have nearly 18 hours of daylight in three different directions on the "outer ring" on a flat earth.
BlueDiamond Might of God?!... Stop the sun over Gabaon, in accordance to the Bibel, THIS IS MIGHT!, and is not possible in a rotation globeearth, neither is possible that "all eyes will be see Him (the Lord), like the stormlight that shows from orient to occident"... its only possible in a flat earth. Water "surfaces" keep ever leveled without drop, bulge or curvature. Sory for my English. Saludos de Argentina. Blessing.
Yeah and Atlas Holds the world up...beat a Titan! puny Jahawe...all he can do is stop a sun...ATLAS HOLDS THE WORLD up. Give me proof that Atlas isent holding the world up Christian...
Those observations are possible on a flat earth. The suns light can travel through a density gradient such as a lens which would cause advanced sunrise and delayed sunset the further you go south. Just varying amounts of atmospheric magnification and lensing and refraction. Various types of lenses can do this, aka a dome or atmospheric gradient. Advanced sunrise and delayed sunset are already a KNOWN phenomenon in both models.
I am just curious as to why you would not use a stationary camera focused on a flag or some similar item and watch the shadow of the object go 360 degrees rather than panning the camera 360 degrees? Seems like that would be solid proof of 24 hour sun
It's not about proof, and the sort of people who'd demand such a thing deny evidence either way (both "fake sun" and "can't see the sun the whole video"). A panoramic shot is more scenic. Videos as you suggest are around too, of course.
The sun appears to move counterclockwise opposite of how it appears to move in the Arctic. So glad that you posted the watch in front of the camera, it clearly shows that you are not using mirror-imaging.
No real 'appears' about it, thats because down here in the southern hemisphere thats the direction it rotates. Spin a ball and look at it from above, then from bellow both sides appear to go in opposite directions to the others despite spinning the same direction as a whole, its also why the night sky 'down' here rotates the opposite.
That watch looks fake as fuck. Most 24 hr antarctica videos in daylight are edited, some are even looped. Pretty interesting things they are hiding to the south.
For those who weren't able to read the video description for some reason and are wondering why the sun has the weird and seemingly fixed rays around itself: The video was shot on a fixed and pretty high aperture f22 which causes this kind of strong flaring due to light diffraction on the aperture blades. It's a known optical defect that photographers have to fight when looking for the right exposition. For us time lapsers, however, the mechanical aperture can pose even more headache, because it tends not to land in the exactly the same position and therefore causes slight flickering. You cannot see it here because either f22 is the upper limit of this particular lens and lands precisely or because it was fixed during the whole shoot to avoid flicker (some cameras/lenses can do that).
5 років тому+10
they ask for a video, they receive one in 4K, they still dont believe hahahahaha.
They’ve flown over the sun now, you can see that in video with your own eyes. There’s not even a question anymore about the shape of the earth, 100% flat
What an incredible and beautiful sight. 😍, I hope that one day I can witness this for myself. It's awe inspiring, and much like seeing the moon through a telescope, seeing with your own eyes must be exponentially more so.
Can someone tell me how the watch and the background can both be in focus, the watch is very close, I dont know any lens that could focus that huge focal length
*"I dont know any lens that could focus that huge focal length"* Then you don't really "know" any lenses. Since the lens is pointed directly at the *friggin' Sun*, even with filtration the aperture, by necessity, would have to be at it's most acute setting. (i.e.~Infinity) Therefore, depth of field would be maximized.
I don't know who professor's stick is, I came because of professor dan Explains. And man, That must really be a sight to see in real life. The sun just rotating around.
@@rogerbarnett8412 except its video editing fraud and anthony and others just like him 'stationed' (smh🤮) in antarctica are adept at fooling the masses with their sunlight games
This comment section is so fun, I love seeing the different stages of people who took it upon themselves to try to inform some of the flat earthers. It's always a flat earther making some outlandish claim, someone disproves it and then the flat earther vanishes not knowing how to hold themselves up in an argument brought about by delusion and faux-paranoia.
This seems strange. I live in the far north and i have NEVER EVER had a single day, in complete darkness. The shortest day of the year, the sun is here for 7 hours. Wonder how that's possible, if the sun is on the "bottom side"
@Off Grid Gringo No celebrating until we know just HOW far north this person lives. If I had to guess by the "seven hours" comment, they only live somewhere around Denmark, Scotland, or Canada
@@jasonc7593 This is like that time a Flat Earther asked me why New Zealand didn't get midnight suns like it was some kind of gotcha moment. Guy had even forgotten that the days got longer.
You don't need to go to antarctica. Go to any country close to the equatorial line and confirm how the daily movement of the sun changes so little that days have the same duration throughout the year:)
@@ollymounara605 you didn't get my point. For countries close to the equatorial line, days have pretty much the same duration throughout the year. There is a difference of just few minutes between the winter and summer solstices. If the flat earth model worked then the sun would never move significantly away from the equator, but of course that doesn't work.
@@jamaldeep13 I’m asking because I’m genuinely curious I’m not “gotcha”-ing chill Can you link or something to another example where the flares off the light emitting object stay exactly the same length as it moves up and down on the perspective of the camera? If so I digress I’m just verifying the validity of this footage lol. I’ve already seen 2 faked videos of the sun in Antarctica so I’m RIGHTLY skeptical.
Strange, it seems the video speeds up just past "West" tag to fit into 2:07 minutes clip; though, the time between "West" and "South" tags increases despite that, and did you notice clouds sort of pop up out of nowhere into clear sky right that second, at about 1:05 minutes? The minutes and the seconds arrows on that watch move simultaneously, must require service.
Anthony Powell: Thank you for this magnificent video. However: Is there a possibility to repeat this timelaps under even better weather conditions, now you have the equipment for it? All the flat'ers I have shown your video, has a huge problem understanding the white fluffy things that makes the sun magically disappear. So they all whine: "Nothing but another NASA hoax". Also, "this video is definitely made in Alaska", is another common claim.
Does not matter how many of these shots I post, they will still call them fake. None of them are willing to take up my challenge in the video description to put their money where their mouths are and go there themselves though.
I fully agree with you Anthony Powell, and my request was meant as a joke. Thx again for sharing your video. The FE community has recently worked on their model, and now accepts arctic midnight sun, so they can "debunk" videos like yours taken "down-under". "Easy to see, it is made in Alaska".... I have even heard a flat'er claim, "at 3:57 or something, you can see the NASA sunlight simulator takes over"! However I doubt we have heard it all. The FE community is very entertaining, except for the fact, they are indoctrinating their own kids, with this kind of nonsense.
@Off Grid Gringo You can book a trip to this exact location here: www.heritage-expeditions.com/destinations/antarctica-travel/ross-sea-antarctica-cruise/
Myself, and any number of my colleagues, have worked at US McMurdo Station and NZ Scott Base on Ross Island, Antarctica and have experienced the 24 hours sun first hand. The location of this time lapse is on the Ice shelf outside of Scott Base, which is often frozen over but occasionally, every few years, will break up and blow out to sea. This last summer season it broke up and blew out in a matter of hours. As the camera pans around you see the green buildings of Scott Base near center screen with just a glimpse of Mt Erebus to the far right and the volcanic plug of Castle Rock just next to that, then Observation Hill (AKA Ob Hill, also a volcanic plug) which then slopes down to the ice on McMurdo Sound which stretches to the distant Dry Valley's. Next there's the occassionally weather obscured mountains known as the Royal Society Range. Then Black Island, White Island and the stretch of ice to the east which almost seems endless until the green flag appears and then Mount Erebus appers again along with Castle Rock. If you disbelieve then get on a cruise to Antarctica and experience it for yourself.
Paul D, this wasn't filmed from as far as the ice shelf, it's taken from the sea ice. At one point you can see the flags marking the Armatige road (or at least the Scott Base link to it). But yeah, this is totally what happens down there at that time if year. It's funny but a bit sad reading the comments from the delusional flat earth types.
No you didn’t. We have a video that’s old, of a pilot flying over the sun. And now drones can see that the sun is in our atmosphere. The globe is completely debunked, and the model can be discarded.
@@tristanlj3409 I do not believe that the sun 'sets', I do believe that it gets oout of my sight and vanishes in the vanishing point of my horizon (horizon = eye sight limit, circle of view rim).
@@hongry-life agreed, but wouldn't you say that a stipulation for the sky to be lit up, is that the sun hasn't set? That being the same as the sun still being up, and therefore it cannot be used as a singular argument against the 24 hour sun. Of course I don't know if that is what you implied.
If I get back there I, intend to. I did get a circular fisheye shot last time I was at the Pole, which I will be publishing as part of a series I am working on on over the next year.
great job! There are too few videos of the southern hemisphere ( north polar circle ) . For FE its not enough ! You have a video of the video that make a video of a video ...
0:55 People are walking backwards. This is filmed in the north, and they rewind the video. In other similar videos, this is more visible than in this one though.
@@Bnslamb 1. Er dette faktisk sant? og 2. Dette er fremdeles ikke 24 timer. Verdenshistorien er forøvrig fullstendig oppdiktet, ta eks: Citadel Hill (Fort George), liksom bygd på 17 og 1800 tallet, i Canada? Samme struktur som Goryōkaku i Japan. Og det i alle fall 5 slike øst i Canada, og mange på østdelen av USA, bare for å nevne noen få. Og hva er grunnen til at alle planetene går på ett og samme plan rundt sola? Det virker usannsynlig. Denne verden er et terrarium, et bygd veksthus som er i ro, ikke en planet fritt i et rom!
@@Zakleo888 I'd say there's no reason for them to be different... them being exactly the same is something one should expect - unless the clouds got in the way, which they didn't. So why having sunrays look exactly the same after being in a relatively same position is a bust is beyond me.
@@Zakleo888 And you actually believe that? I've seen the video and read the description... let me quote: _"Throughout the time the image is shown the quantity, length, width and intensity of the rays _*_do not change at all."_* The intensity of the rays do not change? Then what about 1:11? What about 1:22? What about 1:48? Not a very convincing answer. Actually, it smells more like one of the average fe lies they like to spread.
The problem I see with this video is that the time piece is an analogue watch, will the future generations understand such antiquated means of time keeping? I appreciate you work thank you.
Legit it seems like the only way to actually prove that the earth isnt flat is by doing a god damn live stream for 24 hours unfiltered with no commentary or nothing. Legit just a camera outside and done.
"There are clearly editings, yuo can see the words 'north' and 'west' and such, therfor it is fake" Yea, nah, Karen. That's a small tiny edit so you can follow along with the camera and it's rotation. It just makes things a little more clear. "omg the sun is behind hte clouds most of the time!!! it's fake cuz you cant actually see if it goes down or not" You see those bright lines, Cindy? Those are called sunrays. And the lit, colored sky? It's enough to proof the sun's up there.
@@swansyboy8512 The rays stay present when the clouds pass in front when they should have adjusted. Slow it to .25 speed and you will see photo shop editing. I am disappointed to see it was done to this footage.
@@luvpamelanewton why should rays adjust? you have no fucking idea how optics work, do you? have you ever taken a timelapse of the sun yourself? the only editing as fa as I can see is words most likely done straight in Adobe Premiere Pro.
Absolutely floored to see a Ball watch in the wild, much less from 8 years ago. Hope to own one some day. For now though, my Nite tritium watch will have to do.
Brilliant work! I would hate to think of all the technical issues that had to be overcome in a shoot like this.Moreover given what scientists get paid none of them stole your watch! Congratulations and thanks for sharing a stunningly beautiful video.
I would like to purchase some of the camera equipment and batteries that they used in -9c temps. Also need to know how long did the battery powering the camera last before they had to stop recording and change the battery?
Watch my other video about filming in the cold. This camera was run off solar power with a 12v lead-acid battery and a voltage converter to keep it going, as seen in the final shot.
@@scottyboy2400 generally not a problem, very low humidity, all the moisture in the air is already frozen most of the time this far south as it rarely gets above freezing. When it is needed I just use a dew strap USB lens heater.
i liked the suggestion of filming a stationary object, like a flagpole, and watch the shadow make a full 360 rotation. this footage makes less sense the more i watch it. much love
I have only one thing to say: Min. 1:06. Play from this point in slow motion and anyone can see clouds apearing from nothing in the sky, it´s note real. Clouds come and go, they don´t appear or desappear suddenly, you did a good edition to catch dummies. Congrats.
Basic physics isn't exactly your strong side Fabio. However arrogance obviously is! Water vapor condensing, when it hits cool air. Why is this so hard to understand dummy?
@@holychildofgod3778 but the second camera filming the first one didnt have that. The Bible mentions a nonmoving domestructure earth in 70 places. I am using my reasoning abilities, thats why I'm here God bless.
@@chadamitecheckoutredpillpl2641 The Bible is largely a collection of human made stories from around the Middle East. No different from other mythologies, except for the fact that the canonised books were selected by a closed circle rather than the public. Once you dig into other mythologies and see the similarities in story telling, you will see that the Bible is no different.
Agreed! Btw.. I have settled the FE vs Globe issue one and for all with 100% verifiable proof that you don't even need to leave your living room to verify. Here is the 100% proof Earth is not a spinning ball: 1) THERE IS NO ZIG-ZAG OF THE SUN WHEN RECORDING A 24 HR TIME LAPSE VIDEO OF THE 24 HR ARCTIC SUN (NORTH OF THE ARCTIC CIRCLE) On a spinning ball Earth, there MUST BE a zig-zag of the Sun above the mountain ranges or horizon. Instead, a 360 circling of the Sun is recorded. Think about this very carefully, and you can even test it with a model by placing a tiny camera on a huge beach ball or weather balloon and put model trees everywhere on top of it, making sure the camera is not on the North Pole axis, but is near, but above, the Arctic Circle. Keep the trees and Sun (light bulb across the room) in the camera's view while recording a full 360 revolution of the ball, and you will record a zig-zag Sun that moves above the trees from left to right, then right to left. It is impossible to record the light bulb making a 360 with the trees all moving continuously in the same direction under the light bulb Sun. 2) THE SUN MUST CHANGE SPEED VERY SIGNIFICANTLY ACROSS THE SKY ABOVE THE MOUNTAINS OR HORIZON IN TIME LAPSE VIDEO ON A BALL EARTH. But it does not. Consistent with a Flat Earth Model, the Sun moves at a constant 15 degrees per hour across the sky. On a ball Earth, recording a time lapse of the Arctic (North) midnight Sun from a position near, but above, the Arctic Circle, starting the recording when your position in the 360 rotation of the ball, where you are standing on a spot that is farthest to the right of the Sun, during the first 2-3 hours of recording, the Sun would appear ALMOST STATIONARY in the sky relative to the mountains or horizon, then after 6 hours, the Sun would appear to be moving 15 deg per hour above the mountains or horizon. Stationary to 15 deg per hour is a HUGE contrasting observed speed change of the Sun's aparrent movement due to the ball Spinning. What we actually record in these times lapse videos is a constant speed of 15 deg per hour, consistent with a Flat Earth model. You can verify this 100% proof that Earth is not a spinning ball by testing with a physical model, or a computer simulation, or even a mental visualization if you are able to carefully model in 3D in your mind.
the compass always points north so if there was a south pole when you go below the equator it would point south but it doesnt because there is no south pole!!! Why is that so hard???? Why??? Its so simple it proves they are lying!
I showed this to a FE-er... he said: They must have filmed it in Greenland or something... Well... good job mirroring the image and get a reverse-watch... *Sigh*
Take a flat earther to space on a capsule and he'll say that the window is just LCD. Take him out on a spacewalk and he'll say the same about his helmet's visor.
From 0:53 - 1:55, each of the 14 streaks of the sun rays remain in its exact same individual shape and length. This is not reality. Shady editing. The amount of praise this video has affirms the quote; “It’s easier to fool people than it is to convince them that they’ve been fooled.“
In another thread a day ago you already expressed your recognition for me posting several comments describing mostly the same thing in the same time period, and *only now you decide to arrive at a different comment of mine* and pretend you only just saw it. Like i said to you before, i’m not gullible enough to heed into ridiculous justifications to deceptive videos like this one nor to trust people like yourself. I don’t revere you enough that I will pretend to heed with your explanation just so you will stop labelling me to be a troll. That psychological tactic of yours is not working on me.
@@alainncaileag5692, I told you the truth with ways that you could check it's veracity for yourself if you had trust issues. Anyway, there are dozens of videos of the 24 hour sunlight from Antarctica, it's not like you're denying the fact that it exists are you? .
+Anthony Powell Do you care to explain your camera setup and settings? Some think it is fake and a little explanation may help to put down the naysayers. Thanks.
MYLEEN KÜHNER He did answer. The settings were F22, 1/125 th of a second exposure time and ISO 100. It was a Canon camera with a 16-35 lens. He is currently in Antarctica and planning to do an 8 day time lapse video.
***** There is no CGI. I've been to Antarctica and this is what the sun looks like. It is weird, you can never figure out what time of day it is because it looks the same all the time. Oh, there is CGI in the text he puts on the screen. Not sure why it is cut off behind the mountain though, that is weird. He is not a fraud there IS 24 hour sun below 67 degrees south. I've witnessed this as well as many many others.
Flat Earthers. aka people who deny actual proof based on simple unusual things without actually proving it's nonexistant faults and impossibilities. better known as retards/flattards
@@earth.is.a.plane. I'm quiet because I am investing my time finishing our documentary. I find it sad that you call Anthony's work faked without any evidence (other than it doesn't match your worldview -- pun intended), and when he offers to pay for anyone who believes in the flat earth to test it out for themselves by actually going to the South Pole... and no one takes him up on it?????!!!! I know all your arguments must seem very convincing to you, but when I see that no one from the flat earth side will even take up Anthony's challenge, to me it kinda invalidates everything else that you say. It communicates that you don't really believe it enough yourself to do anything about it. It kinda becomes a bunch of meaningless chatter. By the way, I need to put my actions behind my worldview, as well. And we have. For our documentary, we have done several experiments in which I have clearly seen the curvature of the earth with my own eyes. Anyway, until a flat earther puts their actions behind their belief, and goes down to the Antractic, this will be my final post here for now, because I have a documentary to make!
Patrick Roy you can’t see the curve you fucking CANT. Even Neil Degrasse Tyson will tell you you CANNOT SEE THE CURVE UNTIL OVER 120,000’ ALTITUDE. Valiant effort though, I’m sure your buddies love it.
plane earth query it must be so painful to be in your shoes. When your idea is destroyed, you resorted at calling names. That proves a total lack of intelligence, and combined with FE fantasy, is a recipe for disaster
the lens turns at the exact same speed as the Earth compared to the Sun. Light from the Sun appears to follow the same path throughout the video, Which I believe causes the rays to have an almost equal pattern throughout the video. If you say this is fake, prove it. Show experiments and mathematical evidence which would make this impossible. EDIT: I feel like I jumped into this wayyy too quickly 2 years ago, as in reality I know nothing about lens glare and why it happens. What I do know is that proving a video fake or real does not prove the Earth is flat or round. In fact, the latter should be proven first, and from that we can conclude whether a video is (possibly) real, or factually fake.
yea... this is CGI - sun's rays are too perfect and unwavering. No way that happens in real life photography. Also, the words are BEHIND the mountains - CGI.
@@ziparis Note: I editted my comment from 2 years ago. I see I wanted to "prove" the Earth is round a bit too hastily, and what I said was definitely not a good explanation, as I didn't actually know the cause of lens flare back then, as mentioned in the edit. As for your comment(s): This video could indeed be CGI, but I'd like more information on lens glares before I'd make a claim. However, I have a remark: The words being behind the mountains could still be an edit. I believe it isn't too hard to put words seemingly behind something these days, so I'm fairly certain that on its own shouldn't be enough evidence for this video being CGI entirely.
@1:48 A helicopter appears out of nowhere right side of the watch. 12:35 pm watch time and disappears 12:42 without being capture in any other frame before or after flying.. Tricky stuff @1:51 , (watch time 13:50) same location the magic helicopter appears again and on @1:53 watch(2:37) he flies away and for the first time we have a flying image of the helicopter watch-2:38.
@@fehmidonmez7810 Yeah, can't you read video descriptions? Read and see how the video was actually made. Also that logic is a total failure. A complete brainfart. There's no reason for it to change as it never gets close enough to the horizon for it to dissipate.
Definitely not fake. The ray effect is called a sunstar and it's from using a small aperture. And yes, it can appear if the sun is behind thin clouds. Notice they go away behind thick ones. Some people really need to research simple photographic concepts. This video is totally authentic. By the way, there are plenty of 24 hour videos of the antarctic sun.
Satellite Internet is a thing. The latency is fucking awful - like 1000ms round trip - but it works for remote regions where cables aren't practical. Such as Antarctica! (disclaimer: I don't actually know how Antarctic bases get their Internet. It would just make sense for it to be satellite.)
GPS is a better example. We got I believe 24 satellites up there that send signals (with their information and time of being sent) which are then recieved by a Global Positioning System (GPS) device, and uses 4 of those signals (3 satellites and one extra, for accuracy) to measure your exact position on the Earth. We use this a lot, but it's all fake, init?
I can’t believe flat earthers actually still exist in 2022. I would love to see some IQ test results. Y’all are so dumb it actually makes me fear for the future of our species.
The problem with 24 hour live footage is size. The size of the earth is so large that even when you have a lot of pixels, each pixel is several miles. I believe I calculated the pixel size to be about 20 miles per pixel for the DSCOVR spacecraft. So a storm moving 20 mph would move 1 pixel in an hour. So why do you want streaming live coverage? That would be like watching paint dry. Taking still images every hour or maybe 20 minutes, is more than good enough to track any storm or see any change in the weather patterns on earth.
@Kit Canyon I made a mistake on this comment but the edit is nevertheless clear. Plus people who assume the Sun has linear rays can't tell much about optics either. And last, but not least, just because I don't believe in the globe bullshit doesn't mean I believe in flat earth.
@Kit Canyon What I understand is that no one knows shit about earth for certain, with the difference some group is humble enough to admit it, while the other gets upset you don't accept their weak-based claims. Meantime, no one give a descent explanation why the earth is a globe or about the water's flatness.
@Kit Canyon Where you saw me "state with certainty" the Earth's shape? All I state is that globe explanations are pure BS. Why do you care so much of what people believe is the Earth's shape? How FE inquitities affects you? Why are you against people doing science? You look like some sort of religious fanatic outraged people doesn't share your beliefs. Grow up.
-9 to -1 celsuis? Only that cold? That's like a comfortable winter day you can go out in a T shirt and still be fine if somewhat chilly. And I'm not even from a Nordic country or Russia. In Siberia there are town where the temp go below -40.
It's ok - at McMurdo Station and Scott Base it can get down around -50C (-58F) ambient in Winter, and potentially down to -90C with windchill. Vostok Station holds the world record lowest ambient temperature at -89.9C (-130F).
" .. but .. but .. why are they not buying it? How they see through my fake crap so fast?? The watch was *such* an awesome idea! Why are they NOT buying it??? WHYYY ?? "
Laney Boy, I don't like to censor people, even if they are complete idiots. For those claiming it is fake, put your money where your mouth is and read the last paragraph in the video description.
BlueDiamond We can never explain to flatards,they will never or dont want to get it. However,we can hope that those who are trying to figure out for themselves will see these concrete edvidence vs the flattards pseudoscience.
Okay, so we have 24 hour sunlight from Oct to Feb at the south pole, and 24 hour sunlight from April to August at the north pole, not to mention solar/lunar eclipses ... can someone explain to me how flat Earthers can possibly exist to this day?
This video is a fake. I am 100% sure. Words "NORTH" and "WEST" are behind environment, shadows are not real and do not follow the movement of the sun, flags have no shadow at all.
Thank you so much for making this video. It may serve to put a twinkle of doubt in the minds of the flat-earthers. Maybe some will actually go down and try to prove your work is fake - that should be fun.
@@swansyboy8512 based on nothing ? example of fake vs real fake ua-cam.com/video/m6TkscZjh3w/v-deo.html real ua-cam.com/video/d3_umFGu_gc/v-deo.html and sometimes they forget to clean the basement =) ua-cam.com/video/Iu5aaWWLwzo/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/OWGTXSlXGnc/v-deo.html
@@Europa-Last-Battle_on_Bitchute listen mate, I posted this 2 years ago. I went on with my life and decided to do something that's actually either useful or entertaining, rather than try and debate whether the Earth is flat or not. Regardless, let's get into this one last time. *As for the videos on "real vs fake":* These are 2 observations. Sure, one could be fake, but there's also the posibility that both are faked, and so is the posibility that neither are faked. Think about it. I could just say "no, the one you call fake is real and vice versa", at which point we're just two toddlers yelling at the other that the other's wrong. I truly hope you're smarter than that. In other words: these videos seem to contradict, and neither of us can know for sure which is real, if any, unless we do the observations ourselves. Things is, there's one thing I know for sure: despite not having any good information, you call one real and one fake. The reason of which I'm fairly certain of is that you think the Earth is flat. Which leads me to believe there's some other, stronger and possibly irrefutable evidence, which you did not show. I wonder why? Personally, I believe both could be true, but the latter filmed under certain conditions. Light can be refracted, that much is certain, even in the observations you showed: we even see a distortion or "fuzziness" in both videos. I'm not providing proof, but simply a hypothesis, that hypothesis being: "There could be certain conditions where light gets refracted in such a way that there seems to be [a curve, assuming flat Earth/no curve, assuming round Earth]. *As for the video on the rat:* Same concept, we can just yell at eachother why "I'm right and you're wrong", because we both make assumptions based on previous conclusions. You assume flat Earth, in which case you believe the video to be fake, and there could be a rat inside of the thruster because it's filmed in a basement in front of a green screen with special effects, while I assume the Earth is round which would lead me to believe this video is most likely real, and either the rat is faked evidence, or it isn't a rat at all, but rather a certain mechanism that kind of resembles a rat, especially at such low resolution. (Side note: I do believe it is the latter, the "ears" seem cartoonishly big for a real rat in my opinion.) Kind of ironic how you say you "believe in the truth" and how "globe earthers are indoctrinated and brainwashed", despite the fact that you're told in the tile of the video that it's a rat, and immediately believe it. It never seemed to cross your mind that the rat, maybe, just maybe, isn't a rat. One of the best ways to do get to know whether you're actually correct or not is to try to refute what you believe. An example of why this is the case, which is entirely irrelevant to the flat/globe earth debate, can be found here: ua-cam.com/video/vKA4w2O61Xo/v-deo.html Notice how all these people in this video try to figure out the truth by trying to prove their theory is correct, despite the fact that they are actually wrong, how they never learn anything new with their "experiments". If they tried to prove themselves wrong, they would've learnt a lot more. *As for the video on the presentation of an ex-Nasa worker:* (Side note: I'm seriously curious what this guy's job was at Nasa, he doesn't seem to state that anywhere, and I couldn't find it online, at least not immediately.) Now, I'm not gonna watch and/or refute the whole video. That would take a wall of text and I'd be busy for an hour, and I still have to do some work. I'll talk about a few things I heard and don't agree with in the first few minutes: at around 20 seconds: "How do you brainwash? You repeat" I disagree. I believe the best way to brainwash someone is to tell them they're being brainwashed. To tell them "you know the truth!" And the truth is, most people can think. If someone's spouts obvious bullshit, they'll usually be called out on it, or they'll just be ignored. So, what's "brainwashing" actually? I'd assume it's "making people believe something that isn't true, knowing yourself that it is true". In essence, it's simply making people believe something, regardless of if it is true or not. You believe the Earth is flat, not because people repeated it over and over again, but because some people told you that school is lying to you, and that they have evidence on a flat Earth. And they succeeded in making you believe it. Wether it is true or not is currently irrelevant to what I'm trying to say. Imagine someone coming up to you with some new piece of information, and they repeat it over and over and over again. Would you start to believe it? I personally don't think I would, unless I can understand it. If I can get to the conclusion they came to myself, only then would I believe it. If they started to repeat it, I'd just ignore them. Anyway, notice at how the end he says "I could make people go wapapapa all over twitter." Notice how he doesn't back this claim up at all. He just says "I can" and you probably believed it immediately. Did you not? At around 1 minute: "You've never seen the Earth from here" Well. That's true. I never went to space. At around 1'30": "The first drawing" I believe this is a drawing made by Copernicus right before he died, having it kept hidden to not get sentenced to death by the Church for blasphemy or something along those lines. I haven't read the book myself, I probably can't even read it due to it being in an old, probably foreign language, but I have heard this model was created based on mathematical calculations. Ex-nasa guy seems to talk about other things though. He seems to talk about almost entirely irrelevant things: "We never went to the north-pole back then" and "we haven't built a skyscraper yet" Okay..? What's that got to do with the model though? Why won't you tell us what the model is based on in the first place? Why don't you try to refute that? All I see here is an image, a guy saying "look it's funny and weird and people believe it while it's actually fake" and that it. That's probably what I meant with "flat-earthers don't prove anything, they just say 'it's obviously fake' and that's it." because that's exactly what I'm getting here. At around 3 minutes: "It's only here we had any instruments with which we could prove the model from 500 years ago" There are other ways to prove things than to literally see them with your own eyes. For example: you don't need to open a bag of chips to know there's chips inside. You could shake it, listen to the sound, feel the weight of the bag, and conclude there are most likely chips inside. Opening the bag is the easiest, however. That's a different story with going to space. At around 3'30": "what they tell you at universities..." They give you observations, and then show the path they take to reach an explanation and conclusion. Sometimes, you even have to do them yourself. Example: spinning objects We got two plates with the same mass but a different shape. One was almost perfectly circular, the other was a long, stretched out rectangle. We put it on something that can rotate in the horizontal plane, which had some string wound around it, which went over a pulley and was connected to a weight. We had to determine the difference in how fast the objects accelerated in terms of rotation, and had to give a reasonable explanation. Simple experiment, really, but interesting nonetheless. We had to do a bunch of similar experiments that day, too. In other words: what they do in education is *make you think, and make you doubt the things you hear at first.* They don't want you to take their word for it, they want you to prove it yourself. At around 3'50": "I can't feel myself spinning at a 1000 miles an hour- oh that's because of gravity (mockingly)" Assuming globe Earth: No. It's not because of gravity you can't feel it. It's because it's constant. You feel a constant, non-changing force pulling you 'down'. You do feel your feet touching the ground, you do feel you butt sitting on your chair, but that "push", or that force, doesn't change. The spin just makes it ever so slightly lower. At around 4 minutes: "Gravity, can you prove that in an equation?" Objects appear to fall at a constant rate in a vacuum: g ~ 9.8 m/s² The heavier an object (the more mass it has), the more you need to push in order to make it speed up just as much: F = ma Conclusion: There appears to be a force pulling things down, and that force is directly proportional to the mass of the object. Let's call this force "gravity". As for proving that there is a force between all objects with mass, that's not easy to prove, but I'm certain you can find a paper on it online. Not a youtube video, a thorough paper that's in-depth, with mathematical explanations. At around 4'30": "Everything starts with the word if" OBVIOUSLY. You want scientists to say "That's just how things are"? That's called brainwashing- no, actually, that's just unscientific and stupid, because absolutely no one in their right mind would believe that. OFCOURSE Newton would always start with "If gravity exists..." He's not just gonna say "Yup, that which I wrote there is true, regardless of whatever happens in the world." Anyway, I'm getting tired, I'm done, and this was my final contribution to this one-sided debate on whether the Earth is round or flat. My conclusion is: flat Earthers are brainwashed, and their arguments are unscientific and incomplete. They blindly repeat what they hear from others and copy youtube links claiming one is fake and the other is real, while, unbeknownst to them, their assumption and conclusion based on the assumption are the same.
@@swansyboy8512 To quote you, "In other words: what they do in education is make you think, and make you doubt the things you hear at first. They don't want you to take their word for it, they want you to prove it yourself." This is something I've tried to tell people dozens of times when they've come at me with "you were just told that, and you believed it!" I graduated College in 1998 so, maybe things have changed since then. I got my bachelor's in biological science, which required a lot of science courses. The funny thing is, in all the science classes I had, I don't remember being given many answers. I was always given problems that I had to sort out. I always thought that's how science was taught! Hell, if I was given all the answers, I might have gone ahead for a Masters! Arguing with a FlErfer is just futile. They're never going to change their stance because their entire personalities are defined by their beliefs. It's what makes them feel special and gives them a sense of superiority. Changing that stance would strip them of those feelings and they WON'T do that. Of course, I'm talking about the general FlErfer. Some of the more intelligent but gullible of them have come around to reality, but only a handful. It's pretty sad.
It's a crappy watch because the second hand is moving slower than the minute hand 🤣. Why isn't it moving 60X faster like all other functioning watches/clocks on Earth? Maybe you're being sarcastic though.
@@kelduck8851 This wasn't done with a star filter, though. It's diffraction spikes caused by the iris mechanism at the aperture; you can see its heptagonal shape in the many reflections. Note how each pair of spikes has a stronger primary opposite a weaker secondary, an effect star filters don't have. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_spike#Diffraction_spikes_due_to_non-circular_aperture
So, working in a company that manufactures GNSS antennas (GPS, Galileo, BeiDou, etc.) and Iridium antennas, I feel like I smash flat earth BS on a daily basis. Feels good.
@@kitcanyon658 You should check out NASA's balloon program. There's no need for satellites in space. In their own words it's more cost effective to run their balloon program than it is to put a satellite in space, according to NASA, not me. Just something to consider.
@@space_audits : Sure, balloons can do some research but only from a limited altitude. And their locations are not precise. So yeah, if all you need is data from less than about 120,000ft and you don't care exactly what position you're holding then you could use a balloon. However, no balloon will get you large field of view data that are achieved with satellites.
Thanks Professor Stick :D
Just came for the same reason....
Same
Same
Birdy same
Same reason:-)
I love that not only did the maker of this set up a timelapse camera, but a timelapse camera for the timelapse camera.
Bnio I hate that they didn’t set up a timelapse camera for the time lapse camera for the time lapse camera that’s why I disliked this video
@@seapurrrtleexactly! Now we don't know if the time lapse camera camera was fake!
@@JohnV170 we don’t know, but we can’t deny it was most likely fake
@@RUS38 was or is 🤔
Professor Stick, anyone?
We all know this is fake...the sun is made of cheese ! Or was it the moon...damn you Doctor Who !
Which video of him sent you here? I'd like to watch it.
@@tuschman168 ua-cam.com/video/Tx5gdMA5qiA/v-deo.html (yes, I know this is 3 months late)
The sunshine is very strange and unchanging.
FAKE THIS VIDEO IS FAKING THE FAKE FOR FAKE PURPOSES !!!!
the camera follows the sun at the same rotation speed as the Earth (but in the opposite direction ofcourse) in order to have it basicly stay still on the footage. Since the lightrays keep following mostly the same path, there's very little difference.
@@sofrik9715 You say it's fake based on what? Your intuition or actual evidence?
Purely because it does not work with your theory you call it fake? If us, globe Earthers, try to prove that your footage is false, we give evidence, either through math and physics, or through phenomenons which can easily be tested to be impossible or that show obvious editing. (one example is a certain video of a "flat horizon" that have been used by many flat-earthers, even though we tested it's "flatness" with a few straight lines and noticed it to be concave as it goes under the lines. I dont have a link, but you'll probably find this easily with a quick google search)
@@swansyboy8512 My comment was a joke, I'm not that stupid.
@@sofrik9715 Ah, ok, my bad.
In my defense, there are a lot of idiots here claiming that it is fake, so maybe you could've made it a little clearer? eg. using sArCaSm TeXt
Fake, you should be able to see at least one of the Great Elephants this far south.
10/10-ign
"It's funny"-ign
Here its a perfect example of an unfunny joke comment on UA-cam
Lol gotta love making fun of flat earthers with Discworld
I have already settled the FE vs Globe issue one and for all with 100% verifiable proof that you don't even need to leave your living room to verify.
Here is the 100% proof Earth is not a spinning ball:
1) THERE IS NO ZIG-ZAG OF THE SUN WHEN RECORDING A 24 HR TIME LAPSE VIDEO OF THE 24 HR ARCTIC SUN (NORTH OF THE ARCTIC CIRCLE)
On a spinning ball Earth, there MUST BE a zig-zag of the Sun above the mountain ranges or horizon. Instead, a 360 circling of the Sun is recorded. Think about this very carefully, and you can even test it with a model by placing a tiny camera on a huge beach ball or weather balloon and put model trees everywhere on top of it, making sure the camera is not on the North Pole axis, but is near, but above, the Arctic Circle. Keep the trees and Sun (light bulb across the room) in the camera's view while recording a full 360 revolution of the ball, and you will record a zig-zag Sun that moves above the trees from left to right, then right to left. It is impossible to record the light bulb making a 360 with the trees all moving continuously in the same direction under the light bulb Sun.
2) THE SUN MUST CHANGE SPEED VERY SIGNIFICANTLY ACROSS THE SKY ABOVE THE MOUNTAINS OR HORIZON IN TIME LAPSE VIDEO ON A BALL EARTH.
But it does not. Consistent with a Flat Earth Model, the Sun moves at a constant 15 degrees per hour across the sky.
On a ball Earth, recording a time lapse of the Arctic (North) midnight Sun from a position near, but above, the Arctic Circle, starting the recording when your position in the 360 rotation of the ball, where you are standing on a spot that is farthest to the right of the Sun, during the first 2-3 hours of recording, the Sun would appear ALMOST STATIONARY in the sky relative to the mountains or horizon, then after 6 hours, the Sun would appear to be moving 15 deg per hour above the mountains or horizon. Stationary to 15 deg per hour is a HUGE contrasting observed speed change of the Sun's aparrent movement due to the ball Spinning.
What we actually record in these times lapse videos is a constant speed of 15 deg per hour, consistent with a Flat Earth model.
You can verify this 100% proof that Earth is not a spinning ball by testing with a physical model, or a computer simulation, or even a mental visualization if you are able to carefully model in 3D in your mind.
Fake because the sun has cartoon sun rays that never change 😂💀 I feel bad for adults who believe these videos are real
Came here because Prof. Stick encouraged me to.
Absolutely beautiful!
It's really nice just the sun looks so fake and the way he shine's
the second sun was real and imo, about to "set" but a convenient edit cuts the video short so i guess we will never know...
is this the only 24hr footage?
"you can tell it's real cause it looks so fake, honestly"
_nervous giggle and body shift, adjust the tie when you lie, oh shit, this is being filmed, play cool._
*stares creepiest* _i think i just swallowed my tongue quite literally. play cool._ *stares creepiest intensifies* _i need water_
~a lone, kums
I tried to find the latitude based on how much the Sun's elevation changed during the day, as that will equal the distance from the pole multiplied by 2. After having estimated that the frame is 68° wide and using that as a reference, I found that the Sun's elevation changed by slightly less than 24°, indicating a latitude slightly south of 90 - (24/2) = 78° S.
According to the Wiki-article, the latitude of the Scott base is 77° 51' S, so I missed by less than half a degree.
Interesting what amateurs can figure out based on just a video if their brains don't suffer from hypoxia by being at the top of Mt. Stupid, isn't it?
timnovate.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/dunning-kruger.jpg
Awesome!
@@antzkiwi , are you still in Scott base?
@@cahkene5340 No, back in New Zealand right now.
upvote for "mount stupid" L O L
beautiful teletubbies's sun
am not a flat earther but why is the sun rays don't change they looks like fixed?
Because the camera is pointed at the sun it uses a small aperture to stop the image being frosted out. The smaller aperture you use the more sun rays you'll see. Because the camera is following the sun the rays don't change shape.
You are right. I see it. The rays are super imposed. Small clouds do not affect it when they pass in front. They should. The bright dot for a sun is added too. Color of sun and rays are super imposed and stay the same the whole time and is not realistic.
@@luvpamelanewton The video is just creepy looking.. and the second camera apparently didnt need some aperture shrinkage 🤣🤔
Cuz it fake dude
why would sun rays change? Most of the flaring depends on optics, and direct sun photography is like looking at the sun through binoculars, so the guy uses small aperture and fast shutter speed to not to burn hole in a sensor of a camera. You can try that stuff at home with your phone or whatever. you'll get same results.
If you don't believe this video, then try to explain this.
Daylight at tree southern cities december 22 2017:
Dunedin, New Zealand: 2.51 dark night. 15.44 daylight.
Ushuaia, Argentina: 0.00 dark night. 17.19 daylight.
Cape Town, South Africa: 6.05 dark night. 14.25 daylight.
(the remaining hours is twilight)
Even with a magic shape shifting lampshade around the sun, it is impossible to have nearly 18 hours of daylight in three different directions on the "outer ring" on a flat earth.
I have zero dark night in Europe at 50 degrees latitude as well in the summer half year.
It's only twilight in the night for months then, not dark.
Lars Pehrsson it's not impossible if you have a dome reflecting light.
BlueDiamond
Might of God?!... Stop the sun over Gabaon, in accordance to the Bibel, THIS IS MIGHT!, and is not possible in a rotation globeearth, neither is possible that "all eyes will be see Him (the Lord), like the stormlight that shows from orient to occident"... its only possible in a flat earth.
Water "surfaces" keep ever leveled without drop, bulge or curvature.
Sory for my English.
Saludos de Argentina. Blessing.
Yeah and Atlas Holds the world up...beat a Titan! puny Jahawe...all he can do is stop a sun...ATLAS HOLDS THE WORLD up. Give me proof that Atlas isent holding the world up Christian...
Those observations are possible on a flat earth. The suns light can travel through a density gradient such as a lens which would cause advanced sunrise and delayed sunset the further you go south. Just varying amounts of atmospheric magnification and lensing and refraction. Various types of lenses can do this, aka a dome or atmospheric gradient. Advanced sunrise and delayed sunset are already a KNOWN phenomenon in both models.
That is just a beautiful sight.
*kicks back and grabs some popcorn*
I am just curious as to why you would not use a stationary camera focused on a flag or some similar item and watch the shadow of the object go 360 degrees rather than panning the camera 360 degrees? Seems like that would be solid proof of 24 hour sun
Tom umm you idots will just say "someone is holding a light source and walking around the pole". Cant argue with peope who think that way
It's not about proof, and the sort of people who'd demand such a thing deny evidence either way (both "fake sun" and "can't see the sun the whole video"). A panoramic shot is more scenic. Videos as you suggest are around too, of course.
@@0LoneTech Could you provide a link to one? All the videos I have seen are not continuously recorded for the whole day. Thanks
@@HellllÏôn ua-cam.com/video/9jF349mX2lw/v-deo.html
Flat earthers are the most idiotic people on the globe
The sun appears to move counterclockwise opposite of how it appears to move in the Arctic. So glad that you posted the watch in front of the camera, it clearly shows that you are not using mirror-imaging.
No real 'appears' about it, thats because down here in the southern hemisphere thats the direction it rotates. Spin a ball and look at it from above, then from bellow both sides appear to go in opposite directions to the others despite spinning the same direction as a whole, its also why the night sky 'down' here rotates the opposite.
That watch looks fake as fuck. Most 24 hr antarctica videos in daylight are edited, some are even looped. Pretty interesting things they are hiding to the south.
Because the earth is a rotating sphere
Because the earth is a rotating sphere
@@NZBigfoot
Of course
Cool video. Should do your next one showing different compasses down there and at the magnetic pole.
+Requiem4aDr3Am
Might get a bit wet at the South Magnetic Pole. It's actually a bit north of the Antarctic Circle, and south of South Australia.
Rab Downunder heh yes indeed I remember from my cruise there.
+Rab Downunder No, it is south of the circle. That is why the sun is up for 24 hours.
For those who weren't able to read the video description for some reason and are wondering why the sun has the weird and seemingly fixed rays around itself:
The video was shot on a fixed and pretty high aperture f22 which causes this kind of strong flaring due to light diffraction on the aperture blades. It's a known optical defect that photographers have to fight when looking for the right exposition.
For us time lapsers, however, the mechanical aperture can pose even more headache, because it tends not to land in the exactly the same position and therefore causes slight flickering. You cannot see it here because either f22 is the upper limit of this particular lens and lands precisely or because it was fixed during the whole shoot to avoid flicker (some cameras/lenses can do that).
they ask for a video, they receive one in 4K, they still dont believe hahahahaha.
"it's CGI and poorly edited"
does it _look_ poorly edited, Karen? We've got so many people saying it's correct, but I mean, they're all lying, right?
Fake sun. Lmao
They’ve flown over the sun now, you can see that in video with your own eyes. There’s not even a question anymore about the shape of the earth, 100% flat
Lolololololol lol lol hella fake hahahaha
What an incredible and beautiful sight. 😍, I hope that one day I can witness this for myself. It's awe inspiring, and much like seeing the moon through a telescope, seeing with your own eyes must be exponentially more so.
Can someone tell me how the watch and the background can both be in focus, the watch is very close, I dont know any lens that could focus that huge focal length
+A Parker Judging from the last frame thats impossible, either the watch is in foucs with a blurred background or vice versa
+A Parker a very small aperture setting, in this case f22, this gives most cameras their greatest depth of field for focal length
*"I dont know any lens that could focus that huge focal length"*
Then you don't really "know" any lenses.
Since the lens is pointed directly at the *friggin' Sun*, even with filtration the aperture, by necessity, would have to be at it's most acute setting. (i.e.~Infinity) Therefore, depth of field would be maximized.
@@haywoodjablomy1361 even my 85 f1.2 can do that))
@@LordArioh
Hell, most modern point&shoots can do it! Parker needs to ditch his old Brownie box camera and get with the times.
I don't know who professor's stick is, I came because of professor dan Explains.
And man, That must really be a sight to see in real life. The sun just rotating around.
first rule for sussing out any magic trick is to ask two questions:-
-the first is what do you actually see
-the second is what do you not see
Your point? Nothing magic about this.....
@@rogerbarnett8412 except its video editing fraud and anthony and others just like him 'stationed' (smh🤮) in antarctica are adept at fooling the masses with their sunlight games
This comment section is so fun, I love seeing the different stages of people who took it upon themselves to try to inform some of the flat earthers. It's always a flat earther making some outlandish claim, someone disproves it and then the flat earther vanishes not knowing how to hold themselves up in an argument brought about by delusion and faux-paranoia.
Pilots flew over the sun, there is now no question about the shape of the earth. The globe is completely debunked after that.
This seems strange. I live in the far north and i have NEVER EVER had a single day, in complete darkness.
The shortest day of the year, the sun is here for 7 hours.
Wonder how that's possible, if the sun is on the "bottom side"
Well, that just means you live south of the Arctic Circle. Give us your latitude
@Off Grid Gringo No celebrating until we know just HOW far north this person lives. If I had to guess by the "seven hours" comment, they only live somewhere around Denmark, Scotland, or Canada
I live in Indiana and on the 22nd of December we get just over 8.5hrs of daylight so I'm guessing with over 7hrs you're likely in northern Canada
@@jasonc7593 This is like that time a Flat Earther asked me why New Zealand didn't get midnight suns like it was some kind of gotcha moment. Guy had even forgotten that the days got longer.
@@jamaldeep13 Shortest time sun is up for me is about 4.5h and I do not consider living "far north". 😎
You don't need to go to antarctica. Go to any country close to the equatorial line and confirm how the daily movement of the sun changes so little that days have the same duration throughout the year:)
That actually works on a flat earth. The sun moving away from the equator to the middle or to the outer ring, moving back over the equator.
@@ollymounara605 you didn't get my point. For countries close to the equatorial line, days have pretty much the same duration throughout the year. There is a difference of just few minutes between the winter and summer solstices. If the flat earth model worked then the sun would never move significantly away from the equator, but of course that doesn't work.
So...we see the Scott base, but Ennio Morricone music doesn't automatically play? I thought the Antarctic winds just sounded like that. Weird.
Outstanding! Awe Inspiring! Thank you!!
"Flat earthers are twats." -Nikolai Tesla
When did tesla talk about the shape of the earth?
casper lol
casper5314 Dude the flat earth cult has been around for centuries. So no surprise Tesla talked about their stupidity.
@@casper5314 Quite a bit... the phrase "terrestrial globe" shows up not infrequently in his writings.
That awkward moment when you see that pilots have flown above the sun… 😂
Is it normal for all the sun flares to stay the same length and everything for the entire video?
Nope!
Yes. They're _lens_ flares. They occur inside the lens.
@@jamaldeep13 I’m asking because I’m genuinely curious I’m not “gotcha”-ing chill
Can you link or something to another example where the flares off the light emitting object stay exactly the same length as it moves up and down on the perspective of the camera? If so I digress I’m just verifying the validity of this footage lol.
I’ve already seen 2 faked videos of the sun in Antarctica so I’m RIGHTLY skeptical.
@@b-1sauce525 The camera specs are in the description of this video for you to cross-examine with the resulting footage.
Camera specs in video, take your camera, use the same settings, film the sun wherever you are.
Strange, it seems the video speeds up just past "West" tag to fit into 2:07 minutes clip; though, the time between "West" and "South" tags increases despite that, and did you notice clouds sort of pop up out of nowhere into clear sky right that second, at about 1:05 minutes? The minutes and the seconds arrows on that watch move simultaneously, must require service.
So what you're saying is you don't understand the concept of a time lapse video?
@@0LoneTech hshaushahsuahs, let him be
@flow_state_chocolate explain how it is fake--otherwise keep the comment to yourself
Anthony Powell: Thank you for this magnificent video.
However: Is there a possibility to repeat this timelaps under even better weather conditions, now you have the equipment for it?
All the flat'ers I have shown your video,
has a huge problem understanding the white fluffy things that makes the sun magically disappear.
So they all whine: "Nothing but another NASA hoax".
Also, "this video is definitely made in Alaska", is another common claim.
Does not matter how many of these shots I post, they will still call them fake. None of them are willing to take up my challenge in the video description to put their money where their mouths are and go there themselves though.
I fully agree with you Anthony Powell, and my request was meant as a joke. Thx again for sharing your video.
The FE community has recently worked on their model, and now accepts arctic midnight sun, so they can "debunk" videos like yours taken "down-under". "Easy to see, it is made in Alaska"....
I have even heard a flat'er claim, "at 3:57 or something, you can see the NASA sunlight simulator takes over"!
However I doubt we have heard it all.
The FE community is very entertaining, except for the fact, they are indoctrinating their own kids, with this kind of nonsense.
@Off Grid Gringo You can book a trip to this exact location here: www.heritage-expeditions.com/destinations/antarctica-travel/ross-sea-antarctica-cruise/
Myself, and any number of my colleagues, have worked at US McMurdo Station and NZ Scott Base on Ross Island, Antarctica and have experienced the 24 hours sun first hand. The location of this time lapse is on the Ice shelf outside of Scott Base, which is often frozen over but occasionally, every few years, will break up and blow out to sea. This last summer season it broke up and blew out in a matter of hours.
As the camera pans around you see the green buildings of Scott Base near center screen with just a glimpse of Mt Erebus to the far right and the volcanic plug of Castle Rock just next to that, then Observation Hill (AKA Ob Hill, also a volcanic plug) which then slopes down to the ice on McMurdo Sound which stretches to the distant Dry Valley's. Next there's the occassionally weather obscured mountains known as the Royal Society Range. Then Black Island, White Island and the stretch of ice to the east which almost seems endless until the green flag appears and then Mount Erebus appers again along with Castle Rock.
If you disbelieve then get on a cruise to Antarctica and experience it for yourself.
Paul D, this wasn't filmed from as far as the ice shelf, it's taken from the sea ice. At one point you can see the flags marking the Armatige road (or at least the Scott Base link to it). But yeah, this is totally what happens down there at that time if year. It's funny but a bit sad reading the comments from the delusional flat earth types.
Sure boy u did 😂
No you didn’t. We have a video that’s old, of a pilot flying over the sun. And now drones can see that the sun is in our atmosphere. The globe is completely debunked, and the model can be discarded.
Nice cloud formations.....
I see no sun in the east part
@@hongry-life haha. It's not the sun, it's the fact that it is still day. It's the sun had set, not a lot of time would go by before it would get dark
@@tristanlj3409 I do not believe that the sun 'sets', I do believe that it gets oout of my sight and vanishes in the vanishing point of my horizon (horizon = eye sight limit, circle of view rim).
@@hongry-life agreed, but wouldn't you say that a stipulation for the sky to be lit up, is that the sun hasn't set? That being the same as the sun still being up, and therefore it cannot be used as a singular argument against the 24 hour sun. Of course I don't know if that is what you implied.
Could you do this at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station?
If I get back there I, intend to. I did get a circular fisheye shot last time I was at the Pole, which I will be publishing as part of a series I am working on on over the next year.
+Anthony Powell .....Nice work! May I suggest including a compass next time? Is there anything of note AT 90° South?
+bhaggen Look here, the fifth picture down shows a GPS receiver at 90 degrees. ksblog.wordpress.com/page/2/
+deathblosomrules .....How cool (or cold) is THAT!? And the Sun's out. Any signs of curvature? LOL Thanks for sharing.
@@antzkiwi This is CGI. Those sun rays are constructed too evenly. I've NEVER seen that replicated in unedited photography.
the sun never sets because Scott base, Mc Murdo is below the antarctic circle.
great job! There are too few videos of the southern hemisphere ( north polar circle ) .
For FE its not enough ! You have a video of the video that make a video of a video ...
That sun looks really Jesuit
0:55 People are walking backwards. This is filmed in the north, and they rewind the video. In other similar videos, this is more visible than in this one though.
People are literally teleporting around and you can't tell them apart, so no, you're full of crap
Tøft å skrive tull på nett når du driver egen firma.
@@Bnslamb Det er ikke tull. Denne verden er et terrarium, et bygd, og stasjonært veksthus, ikke en planet fritt i et rom!
@@per-bjarnemikalsen3996
Ta en tur til Ushuaia 21. desember og se 17 timer og 20 minutter sol.
@@Bnslamb 1. Er dette faktisk sant? og 2. Dette er fremdeles ikke 24 timer. Verdenshistorien er forøvrig fullstendig oppdiktet, ta eks: Citadel Hill (Fort George), liksom bygd på 17 og 1800 tallet, i Canada? Samme struktur som Goryōkaku i Japan. Og det i alle fall 5 slike øst i Canada, og mange på østdelen av USA, bare for å nevne noen få. Og hva er grunnen til at alle planetene går på ett og samme plan rundt sola? Det virker usannsynlig. Denne verden er et terrarium, et bygd veksthus som er i ro, ikke en planet fritt i et rom!
The sunrays are exactly the same after 24hours? :)
Compare 0:51 with 1:51 .... hmmm that is a BUST!
So? Why should they be any different?
If you would try to answer this question yourself, what would you say?
@@Zakleo888 I'd say there's no reason for them to be different... them being exactly the same is something one should expect - unless the clouds got in the way, which they didn't. So why having sunrays look exactly the same after being in a relatively same position is a bust is beyond me.
IvanSensei88
Search for ”Faked CGI sun in Antartica”,
The answer is in that video.
@@Zakleo888 And you actually believe that?
I've seen the video and read the description... let me quote:
_"Throughout the time the image is shown the quantity, length, width and intensity of the rays _*_do not change at all."_*
The intensity of the rays do not change? Then what about 1:11? What about 1:22? What about 1:48?
Not a very convincing answer. Actually, it smells more like one of the average fe lies they like to spread.
I've been trying to keep an open mind about all this, but this does look strange.
Hey Yoseff. It has been 3 years. Still a skeptic?
wow! it's my first time i see this...its amazing!! Thank you!
The problem I see with this video is that the time piece is an analogue watch, will the future generations understand such antiquated means of time keeping? I appreciate you work thank you.
Very very lucky to have gone down there. No place like it.
Legit it seems like the only way to actually prove that the earth isnt flat is by doing a god damn live stream for 24 hours unfiltered with no commentary or nothing.
Legit just a camera outside and done.
Nah, the flattards will still invent an excuse to dismiss it.
"There are clearly editings, yuo can see the words 'north' and 'west' and such, therfor it is fake"
Yea, nah, Karen. That's a small tiny edit so you can follow along with the camera and it's rotation. It just makes things a little more clear.
"omg the sun is behind hte clouds most of the time!!! it's fake cuz you cant actually see if it goes down or not"
You see those bright lines, Cindy? Those are called sunrays. And the lit, colored sky? It's enough to proof the sun's up there.
@@swansyboy8512 The rays stay present when the clouds pass in front when they should have adjusted. Slow it to .25 speed and you will see photo shop editing. I am disappointed to see it was done to this footage.
@@luvpamelanewton I agree that glare looks fakes also this smacks of editing
@@luvpamelanewton why should rays adjust? you have no fucking idea how optics work, do you? have you ever taken a timelapse of the sun yourself? the only editing as fa as I can see is words most likely done straight in Adobe Premiere Pro.
damn, seeing the clouds forming is awesome
It's so weird and surreal... They sometimes seem to disappear... Do you know how it works? I'd like to know honestly.
Absolutely floored to see a Ball watch in the wild, much less from 8 years ago. Hope to own one some day. For now though, my Nite tritium watch will have to do.
Thank you for also showing us the rig.
You're right it sure is rigged.
Wow! Mind-blowing!!!
There is no way that you expect me to believe this is real
Why not?
Lmao, no real footage would half that many edits
@@Nicolos117 The only edits in the tracking shot (the important part of the video) were the cardinal directions, dude
@@jamaldeep13 ignore the text on the ice and constant manipulation
@@Nicolos117 Okay
Midnight sun still happens up there in Antarctica
Brilliant work! I would hate to think of all the technical issues that had to be overcome in a shoot like this.Moreover given what scientists get paid none of them stole your watch!
Congratulations and thanks for sharing a stunningly beautiful video.
I would like to purchase some of the camera equipment and batteries that they used in -9c temps. Also need to know how long did the battery powering the camera last before they had to stop recording and change the battery?
Watch my other video about filming in the cold. This camera was run off solar power with a 12v lead-acid battery and a voltage converter to keep it going, as seen in the final shot.
Thanks. How do u keep ice accumulation from happening?
@@scottyboy2400 generally not a problem, very low humidity, all the moisture in the air is already frozen most of the time this far south as it rarely gets above freezing. When it is needed I just use a dew strap USB lens heater.
Does anyone know what music that is at 0:53? It sounds awesome!
It is an original piece compsed for my movie Antarctica: A Year On Ice. The soundtrack is available on iTunes etc.
We should see many more videos like this one ! Right? Lets see more!
i liked the suggestion of filming a stationary object, like a flagpole, and watch the shadow make a full 360 rotation.
this footage makes less sense the more i watch it.
much love
I have only one thing to say: Min. 1:06. Play from this point in slow motion and anyone can see clouds apearing from nothing in the sky, it´s note real. Clouds come and go, they don´t appear or desappear suddenly, you did a good edition to catch dummies. Congrats.
Ummm, yes, clouds DO form out of invisible vapor in the sky ALL the time.
Basic physics isn't exactly your strong side Fabio. However arrogance obviously is!
Water vapor condensing, when it hits cool air.
Why is this so hard to understand dummy?
Damn, I got the chills watching this! This is amazing! Nice job!
Awesome video! Thanks for putting this together!
Man this would fuck with my sleep schedule so bad
So many nutcases claiming it's fake. Our education system has truly failed us.
Unfortunately no educational system is going to cure Carlin's Law or the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
what in the world are Carlin's Law or the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
malucos são vocês, where's the sun between 17 oclock to 00 oclock? Liears and asholes
@@joaquinarosavaz9879 Watch the clock. He does a full 24 hrs starting and ending at North.
@@joaquinarosavaz9879 The small clouds did not affect the rays? Is that super imposed?
This video disproves the flat earth model very elegantly,
You did a wonderful work,
Thank you for sharing it with us to learn from it. :)
no lmao it practically proves it when that sun looks that fake.
@@chadamitecheckoutredpillpl2641 It's sun flare on the camera lenses.
Please use your reasoning abilities, that your Maker gave you.
@@holychildofgod3778 but the second camera filming the first one didnt have that. The Bible mentions a nonmoving domestructure earth in 70 places. I am using my reasoning abilities, thats why I'm here God bless.
@@chadamitecheckoutredpillpl2641 The Bible is largely a collection of human made stories from around the Middle East. No different from other mythologies, except for the fact that the canonised books were selected by a closed circle rather than the public. Once you dig into other mythologies and see the similarities in story telling, you will see that the Bible is no different.
@@Qwerty-ly8qk the Bible is the objective truth about the universe. I didnt read your comment.
what 's missing in this video is a compass next to the watch...
Agreed! Btw.. I have settled the FE vs Globe issue one and for all with 100% verifiable proof that you don't even need to leave your living room to verify.
Here is the 100% proof Earth is not a spinning ball:
1) THERE IS NO ZIG-ZAG OF THE SUN WHEN RECORDING A 24 HR TIME LAPSE VIDEO OF THE 24 HR ARCTIC SUN (NORTH OF THE ARCTIC CIRCLE)
On a spinning ball Earth, there MUST BE a zig-zag of the Sun above the mountain ranges or horizon. Instead, a 360 circling of the Sun is recorded. Think about this very carefully, and you can even test it with a model by placing a tiny camera on a huge beach ball or weather balloon and put model trees everywhere on top of it, making sure the camera is not on the North Pole axis, but is near, but above, the Arctic Circle. Keep the trees and Sun (light bulb across the room) in the camera's view while recording a full 360 revolution of the ball, and you will record a zig-zag Sun that moves above the trees from left to right, then right to left. It is impossible to record the light bulb making a 360 with the trees all moving continuously in the same direction under the light bulb Sun.
2) THE SUN MUST CHANGE SPEED VERY SIGNIFICANTLY ACROSS THE SKY ABOVE THE MOUNTAINS OR HORIZON IN TIME LAPSE VIDEO ON A BALL EARTH.
But it does not. Consistent with a Flat Earth Model, the Sun moves at a constant 15 degrees per hour across the sky.
On a ball Earth, recording a time lapse of the Arctic (North) midnight Sun from a position near, but above, the Arctic Circle, starting the recording when your position in the 360 rotation of the ball, where you are standing on a spot that is farthest to the right of the Sun, during the first 2-3 hours of recording, the Sun would appear ALMOST STATIONARY in the sky relative to the mountains or horizon, then after 6 hours, the Sun would appear to be moving 15 deg per hour above the mountains or horizon. Stationary to 15 deg per hour is a HUGE contrasting observed speed change of the Sun's aparrent movement due to the ball Spinning.
What we actually record in these times lapse videos is a constant speed of 15 deg per hour, consistent with a Flat Earth model.
You can verify this 100% proof that Earth is not a spinning ball by testing with a physical model, or a computer simulation, or even a mental visualization if you are able to carefully model in 3D in your mind.
the compass always points north so if there was a south pole when you go below the equator it would point south but it doesnt because there is no south pole!!! Why is that so hard???? Why??? Its so simple it proves they are lying!
@@barryschultz4947 What on God's earth are you talking about? "there is no south pole" ????
And what would a compass prove or disprove ?
@@barryschultz4947so true amen 🙏
So, apparently witsit says the stitched the start to the end.
But the cloud formations dont match
Wrong Video Mate
Here the Problem lies with the way too consistent rays of the sun, when overexposing them, they dont shrink. the sun is edited in
Also the watch Glitches
@@kevinsamuelbo which video is it
@@SwaaallaGE This one
ua-cam.com/video/YQlr366eels/v-deo.html
Still makes it abundantly clear that the Sun never set during that wholes sequence.
Beautiful video. Thank you for sharing
I showed this to a FE-er... he said: They must have filmed it in Greenland or something...
Well... good job mirroring the image and get a reverse-watch...
*Sigh*
😂
Take a flat earther to space on a capsule and he'll say that the window is just LCD.
Take him out on a spacewalk and he'll say the same about his helmet's visor.
After seeing a pilot fly over the sun, you guys can have the fake 24 hours of daylight video. Explain flying over the sun 😂😂😂
Just recently fe's were invited to see this year's 24 hr sun. They all chickened out. Sci Man Dan.
@Joey-wq7iw that's a easy explanation. IT NEVER HAPPENED 😂😂
From 0:53 - 1:55, each of the 14 streaks of the sun rays remain in its exact same individual shape and length. This is not reality. Shady editing. The amount of praise this video has affirms the quote; “It’s easier to fool people than it is to convince them that they’ve been fooled.“
I literally just explained this to you in another comment thread. Are you still convinced that you're *not* a troll?
In another thread a day ago you already expressed your recognition for me posting several comments describing mostly the same thing in the same time period, and *only now you decide to arrive at a different comment of mine* and pretend you only just saw it. Like i said to you before, i’m not gullible enough to heed into ridiculous justifications to deceptive videos like this one nor to trust people like yourself. I don’t revere you enough that I will pretend to heed with your explanation just so you will stop labelling me to be a troll. That psychological tactic of yours is not working on me.
@@alainncaileag5692, I told you the truth with ways that you could check it's veracity for yourself if you had trust issues.
Anyway, there are dozens of videos of the 24 hour sunlight from Antarctica, it's not like you're denying the fact that it exists are you? .
The rays stay the same because the lens stays the same. Those rays don’t exist in real life, they are a product of the lens itself.
This is just beautiful.
+Anthony Powell Do you care to explain your camera setup and settings? Some think it is fake and a little explanation may help to put down the naysayers. Thanks.
he is a Killer He will Not answer. (sorry for my english im from Germany)
MYLEEN KÜHNER He did answer. The settings were F22, 1/125 th of a second exposure time and ISO 100. It was a Canon camera with a 16-35 lens. He is currently in Antarctica and planning to do an 8 day time lapse video.
I have that in my Netflix queue. Have seen the first few minutes but looks great.
Oh, and the legitimate time lapse you mention is by the same guy that made the Antarctica documentary.
***** There is no CGI. I've been to Antarctica and this is what the sun looks like. It is weird, you can never figure out what time of day it is because it looks the same all the time. Oh, there is CGI in the text he puts on the screen. Not sure why it is cut off behind the mountain though, that is weird. He is not a fraud there IS 24 hour sun below 67 degrees south. I've witnessed this as well as many many others.
Cool vid Antz and Rach 👍👍
Professor Sticks sent me here 💁♂️
looks awesome!
i wanna go there
Who in the hell disliked this video? Well it has a bit long intro but it's also in 4k...
Flat Earthers
Flat Earthers
Flat Earthers.
aka people who deny actual proof based on simple unusual things without actually proving it's nonexistant faults and impossibilities.
better known as retards/flattards
Very cool! Love the watch mounted in front of the lens. :-)
When's the part with the 24 hour sun?
About half way through the video.
Anthony, we are making a documentary debunking the flat earth. Is there a way to get a hold of you to see if we can use this clip?
via antarcticimagesdotcom
@@earth.is.a.plane. I'm quiet because I am investing my time finishing our documentary. I find it sad that you call Anthony's work faked without any evidence (other than it doesn't match your worldview -- pun intended), and when he offers to pay for anyone who believes in the flat earth to test it out for themselves by actually going to the South Pole... and no one takes him up on it?????!!!! I know all your arguments must seem very convincing to you, but when I see that no one from the flat earth side will even take up Anthony's challenge, to me it kinda invalidates everything else that you say. It communicates that you don't really believe it enough yourself to do anything about it. It kinda becomes a bunch of meaningless chatter. By the way, I need to put my actions behind my worldview, as well. And we have. For our documentary, we have done several experiments in which I have clearly seen the curvature of the earth with my own eyes. Anyway, until a flat earther puts their actions behind their belief, and goes down to the Antractic, this will be my final post here for now, because I have a documentary to make!
Patrick Roy you can’t see the curve you fucking CANT. Even Neil Degrasse Tyson will tell you you CANNOT SEE THE CURVE UNTIL OVER 120,000’ ALTITUDE. Valiant effort though, I’m sure your buddies love it.
@@increasement So you believe NDT?
plane earth query it must be so painful to be in your shoes. When your idea is destroyed, you resorted at calling names. That proves a total lack of intelligence, and combined with FE fantasy, is a recipe for disaster
I never get such a exact and non-changing star rays pattern on my sun photos over many hours of time.
Is it a special filter or lens that you use?
the lens turns at the exact same speed as the Earth compared to the Sun. Light from the Sun appears to follow the same path throughout the video, Which I believe causes the rays to have an almost equal pattern throughout the video.
If you say this is fake, prove it. Show experiments and mathematical evidence which would make this impossible.
EDIT: I feel like I jumped into this wayyy too quickly 2 years ago, as in reality I know nothing about lens glare and why it happens. What I do know is that proving a video fake or real does not prove the Earth is flat or round. In fact, the latter should be proven first, and from that we can conclude whether a video is (possibly) real, or factually fake.
@@swansyboy8512 Totally CGI - the words on on layers BEHIND the mountains, and yea, the sun rays are too perfect.
yea... this is CGI - sun's rays are too perfect and unwavering. No way that happens in real life photography. Also, the words are BEHIND the mountains - CGI.
@@ziparis Note: I editted my comment from 2 years ago. I see I wanted to "prove" the Earth is round a bit too hastily, and what I said was definitely not a good explanation, as I didn't actually know the cause of lens flare back then, as mentioned in the edit.
As for your comment(s):
This video could indeed be CGI, but I'd like more information on lens glares before I'd make a claim. However, I have a remark:
The words being behind the mountains could still be an edit. I believe it isn't too hard to put words seemingly behind something these days, so I'm fairly certain that on its own shouldn't be enough evidence for this video being CGI entirely.
@@swansyboy8512 I've been a photographer for decades. I've NEVER seen sun rays that uniform - EVER.
"I can't explain this, thus it's fake" -flatearther exposing his intelectual dissonance/dishonesty.
@1:48 A helicopter appears out of nowhere right side of the watch. 12:35 pm watch time and disappears 12:42 without being capture in any other frame before or after flying.. Tricky stuff
@1:51 , (watch time 13:50) same location the magic helicopter appears again and on @1:53 watch(2:37) he flies away and for the first time we have a flying image of the helicopter watch-2:38.
So a helicopter landing and taking off is magic?
Yes thats edited.
@@fehmidonmez7810 A helicopter taking off and landing is edited. What?
@@IvanSensei88 That whole video edited. You will never get the same sun rays at the bottom of a ball while you're 24.5 degree tilted. Obvious fake.
@@fehmidonmez7810 Yeah, can't you read video descriptions? Read and see how the video was actually made.
Also that logic is a total failure. A complete brainfart. There's no reason for it to change as it never gets close enough to the horizon for it to dissipate.
1:21 The sun being due south: that one still frame is all you need to prove the earth is a globe and not flat. Impossible on flat earth.
Credit mctoon
Definitely not fake. The ray effect is called a sunstar and it's from using a small aperture. And yes, it can appear if the sun is behind thin clouds. Notice they go away behind thick ones. Some people really need to research simple photographic concepts. This video is totally authentic. By the way, there are plenty of 24 hour videos of the antarctic sun.
I thought it was called the starburst effect.
1. Send satellite to space
2. receive internet from satellite orbiting around earth
3. use internet to say space is fake and the earth is flat
no one receives internet via Satellites. Ever heard of Cables?
Satellite Internet is a thing. The latency is fucking awful - like 1000ms round trip - but it works for remote regions where cables aren't practical. Such as Antarctica! (disclaimer: I don't actually know how Antarctic bases get their Internet. It would just make sense for it to be satellite.)
GPS is a better example. We got I believe 24 satellites up there that send signals (with their information and time of being sent) which are then recieved by a Global Positioning System (GPS) device, and uses 4 of those signals (3 satellites and one extra, for accuracy) to measure your exact position on the Earth. We use this a lot, but it's all fake, init?
@@swansyboy8512 yes all fake
Awesome video! Great videography. I don't know why so many think this is fake; maybe spend more time outside and less time playing video games.
It's CGI. The words are behind the mountains. Sun looks totally fake.
Because this is either in the north or edited to appear 24 hour sun in the south. Thats why its fake.
@@TMesser74 it's fake? The earth is flat there can be no 24 hr sun in Antarctica and no rotation of the stars around a southerly axis in the sky.
I can’t believe flat earthers actually still exist in 2022. I would love to see some IQ test results. Y’all are so dumb it actually makes me fear for the future of our species.
Denying the existence of Antarctica is a sacred cow for flat-earthers.
The part you came here to see starts at 0:53. Why do people insist on putting super long intros in their videos?
The balmy Antarctic summer. It would be interesting to experience the 24-hour sun, but not when it's freezing all the time.
Earth is not flat! Why can't these flat earth people get it?
prove it
The problem with 24 hour live footage is size. The size of the earth is so large that even when you have a lot of pixels, each pixel is several miles. I believe I calculated the pixel size to be about 20 miles per pixel for the DSCOVR spacecraft. So a storm moving 20 mph would move 1 pixel in an hour. So why do you want streaming live coverage? That would be like watching paint dry. Taking still images every hour or maybe 20 minutes, is more than good enough to track any storm or see any change in the weather patterns on earth.
It makes you wonder doesn't it?
Because they're hard-headed and refuse to listen to reason... just don't listen to them.
UnsilentGamer i just going keep to mydiscovery that *ALL* flat earther fail at basic geometry
Man! Reading the comments the FE'ers are really butt hurt!!! LOL Stick brought me here by the way!
tubedude54 cgi sun with fixed sun rays much?
soundtrack please!
Music is from the soundtrack of my film Antarctica: A Year On Ice by Plan 9. Soundtrack available on iTunes Amazon etc.
Anthony Powell Thanks! Awesome!
@@jinhong5152 is that Saitama I see?
yes indeed, @@swansyboy8512, yes indeed
@@jinhong5152 Souka.
Where is the sun at 2:06:80 i'd say ? lol
How does one acquire work at research bases in Antarctica. Is there specific qualifications you need or something?
Richard Bottomley USA
Kind of wish there weren’t clouds covering the sun for around half of the cycle :/
all this "its fake!!" comments.. its hillarious to read..
Shocking and entertaining at the same time 🙂
LOL the static sunrays pierce the ground and pass over the clock. Looks legit.
yup at 1:13 copy that
@Kit Canyon I made a mistake on this comment but the edit is nevertheless clear.
Plus people who assume the Sun has linear rays can't tell much about optics either.
And last, but not least, just because I don't believe in the globe bullshit doesn't mean I believe in flat earth.
@Kit Canyon What I understand is that no one knows shit about earth for certain, with the difference some group is humble enough to admit it, while the other gets upset you don't accept their weak-based claims.
Meantime, no one give a descent explanation why the earth is a globe or about the water's flatness.
@Kit Canyon Where you saw me "state with certainty" the Earth's shape?
All I state is that globe explanations are pure BS.
Why do you care so much of what people believe is the Earth's shape? How FE inquitities affects you? Why are you against people doing science?
You look like some sort of religious fanatic outraged people doesn't share your beliefs.
Grow up.
Maybe you should learn the difference between sun rays and lens flares.
-9 to -1 celsuis? Only that cold? That's like a comfortable winter day you can go out in a T shirt and still be fine if somewhat chilly.
And I'm not even from a Nordic country or Russia. In Siberia there are town where the temp go below -40.
It's ok - at McMurdo Station and Scott Base it can get down around -50C (-58F) ambient in Winter, and potentially down to -90C with windchill. Vostok Station holds the world record lowest ambient temperature at -89.9C (-130F).
God... That's the type of cold where you literally sneeze icicles.
Yeah, but it's the middle of the Summer!
" .. but .. but .. why are they not buying it? How they see through my fake crap so fast?? The watch was *such* an awesome idea! Why are they NOT buying it??? WHYYY ?? "
"It's just gotta be fake, the buybull says the earth is flat!!"
TURN OFF THESE COMMENTS HOLY CRAP THEY'RE MISERABLE
Laney Boy, I don't like to censor people, even if they are complete idiots. For those claiming it is fake, put your money where your mouth is and read the last paragraph in the video description.
BlueDiamond
We can never explain to flatards,they will never or dont want to get it. However,we can hope that those who are trying to figure out for themselves will see these concrete edvidence vs the flattards pseudoscience.
We flew over the sun more on, there’s no question about earths shape anymore. Globe heads lost
@Joey-wq7iw You flew over the Sun... like right above it, did you take a picture or record it I would love to see what it looks like from up close
@@D3Vi1SKi113R Pilots can fly higher than the sun and moon. Doesn’t mean they fly directly over it.
Okay, so we have 24 hour sunlight from Oct to Feb at the south pole, and 24 hour sunlight from April to August at the north pole, not to mention solar/lunar eclipses ... can someone explain to me how flat Earthers can possibly exist to this day?
This video is a fake. I am 100% sure. Words "NORTH" and "WEST" are behind environment, shadows are not real and do not follow the movement of the sun, flags have no shadow at all.
They are too stupid to understand evidence 😂
@@TheJelac well as long as youre sure, it must be true then 😂
Willful ignorance is one answer.
Thank you so much for making this video. It may serve to put a twinkle of doubt in the minds of the flat-earthers. Maybe some will actually go down and try to prove your work is fake - that should be fun.
what do you mean "prove your work is fake"?
They dont prove anything, they say "it's obviously fake" based on nothing!
@@swansyboy8512 based on nothing ?
example of fake vs real
fake
ua-cam.com/video/m6TkscZjh3w/v-deo.html
real
ua-cam.com/video/d3_umFGu_gc/v-deo.html
and sometimes they forget to clean the basement =)
ua-cam.com/video/Iu5aaWWLwzo/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/OWGTXSlXGnc/v-deo.html
@@Europa-Last-Battle_on_Bitchute listen mate, I posted this 2 years ago. I went on with my life and decided to do something that's actually either useful or entertaining, rather than try and debate whether the Earth is flat or not.
Regardless, let's get into this one last time.
*As for the videos on "real vs fake":*
These are 2 observations. Sure, one could be fake, but there's also the posibility that both are faked, and so is the posibility that neither are faked.
Think about it. I could just say "no, the one you call fake is real and vice versa", at which point we're just two toddlers yelling at the other that the other's wrong. I truly hope you're smarter than that.
In other words: these videos seem to contradict, and neither of us can know for sure which is real, if any, unless we do the observations ourselves.
Things is, there's one thing I know for sure: despite not having any good information, you call one real and one fake. The reason of which I'm fairly certain of is that you think the Earth is flat. Which leads me to believe there's some other, stronger and possibly irrefutable evidence, which you did not show. I wonder why?
Personally, I believe both could be true, but the latter filmed under certain conditions. Light can be refracted, that much is certain, even in the observations you showed: we even see a distortion or "fuzziness" in both videos. I'm not providing proof, but simply a hypothesis, that hypothesis being: "There could be certain conditions where light gets refracted in such a way that there seems to be [a curve, assuming flat Earth/no curve, assuming round Earth].
*As for the video on the rat:*
Same concept, we can just yell at eachother why "I'm right and you're wrong", because we both make assumptions based on previous conclusions. You assume flat Earth, in which case you believe the video to be fake, and there could be a rat inside of the thruster because it's filmed in a basement in front of a green screen with special effects, while I assume the Earth is round which would lead me to believe this video is most likely real, and either the rat is faked evidence, or it isn't a rat at all, but rather a certain mechanism that kind of resembles a rat, especially at such low resolution. (Side note: I do believe it is the latter, the "ears" seem cartoonishly big for a real rat in my opinion.)
Kind of ironic how you say you "believe in the truth" and how "globe earthers are indoctrinated and brainwashed", despite the fact that you're told in the tile of the video that it's a rat, and immediately believe it. It never seemed to cross your mind that the rat, maybe, just maybe, isn't a rat.
One of the best ways to do get to know whether you're actually correct or not is to try to refute what you believe. An example of why this is the case, which is entirely irrelevant to the flat/globe earth debate, can be found here: ua-cam.com/video/vKA4w2O61Xo/v-deo.html
Notice how all these people in this video try to figure out the truth by trying to prove their theory is correct, despite the fact that they are actually wrong, how they never learn anything new with their "experiments". If they tried to prove themselves wrong, they would've learnt a lot more.
*As for the video on the presentation of an ex-Nasa worker:*
(Side note: I'm seriously curious what this guy's job was at Nasa, he doesn't seem to state that anywhere, and I couldn't find it online, at least not immediately.)
Now, I'm not gonna watch and/or refute the whole video. That would take a wall of text and I'd be busy for an hour, and I still have to do some work. I'll talk about a few things I heard and don't agree with in the first few minutes:
at around 20 seconds: "How do you brainwash? You repeat"
I disagree. I believe the best way to brainwash someone is to tell them they're being brainwashed. To tell them "you know the truth!" And the truth is, most people can think. If someone's spouts obvious bullshit, they'll usually be called out on it, or they'll just be ignored. So, what's "brainwashing" actually? I'd assume it's "making people believe something that isn't true, knowing yourself that it is true". In essence, it's simply making people believe something, regardless of if it is true or not. You believe the Earth is flat, not because people repeated it over and over again, but because some people told you that school is lying to you, and that they have evidence on a flat Earth. And they succeeded in making you believe it. Wether it is true or not is currently irrelevant to what I'm trying to say.
Imagine someone coming up to you with some new piece of information, and they repeat it over and over and over again. Would you start to believe it? I personally don't think I would, unless I can understand it. If I can get to the conclusion they came to myself, only then would I believe it. If they started to repeat it, I'd just ignore them.
Anyway, notice at how the end he says "I could make people go wapapapa all over twitter." Notice how he doesn't back this claim up at all. He just says "I can" and you probably believed it immediately. Did you not?
At around 1 minute: "You've never seen the Earth from here"
Well. That's true. I never went to space.
At around 1'30": "The first drawing"
I believe this is a drawing made by Copernicus right before he died, having it kept hidden to not get sentenced to death by the Church for blasphemy or something along those lines. I haven't read the book myself, I probably can't even read it due to it being in an old, probably foreign language, but I have heard this model was created based on mathematical calculations. Ex-nasa guy seems to talk about other things though. He seems to talk about almost entirely irrelevant things: "We never went to the north-pole back then" and "we haven't built a skyscraper yet"
Okay..? What's that got to do with the model though? Why won't you tell us what the model is based on in the first place? Why don't you try to refute that? All I see here is an image, a guy saying "look it's funny and weird and people believe it while it's actually fake" and that it. That's probably what I meant with "flat-earthers don't prove anything, they just say 'it's obviously fake' and that's it." because that's exactly what I'm getting here.
At around 3 minutes: "It's only here we had any instruments with which we could prove the model from 500 years ago"
There are other ways to prove things than to literally see them with your own eyes. For example: you don't need to open a bag of chips to know there's chips inside. You could shake it, listen to the sound, feel the weight of the bag, and conclude there are most likely chips inside. Opening the bag is the easiest, however. That's a different story with going to space.
At around 3'30": "what they tell you at universities..."
They give you observations, and then show the path they take to reach an explanation and conclusion. Sometimes, you even have to do them yourself.
Example: spinning objects
We got two plates with the same mass but a different shape. One was almost perfectly circular, the other was a long, stretched out rectangle. We put it on something that can rotate in the horizontal plane, which had some string wound around it, which went over a pulley and was connected to a weight. We had to determine the difference in how fast the objects accelerated in terms of rotation, and had to give a reasonable explanation. Simple experiment, really, but interesting nonetheless. We had to do a bunch of similar experiments that day, too.
In other words: what they do in education is *make you think, and make you doubt the things you hear at first.* They don't want you to take their word for it, they want you to prove it yourself.
At around 3'50": "I can't feel myself spinning at a 1000 miles an hour- oh that's because of gravity (mockingly)"
Assuming globe Earth:
No. It's not because of gravity you can't feel it. It's because it's constant. You feel a constant, non-changing force pulling you 'down'. You do feel your feet touching the ground, you do feel you butt sitting on your chair, but that "push", or that force, doesn't change. The spin just makes it ever so slightly lower.
At around 4 minutes: "Gravity, can you prove that in an equation?"
Objects appear to fall at a constant rate in a vacuum:
g ~ 9.8 m/s²
The heavier an object (the more mass it has), the more you need to push in order to make it speed up just as much:
F = ma
Conclusion: There appears to be a force pulling things down, and that force is directly proportional to the mass of the object. Let's call this force "gravity". As for proving that there is a force between all objects with mass, that's not easy to prove, but I'm certain you can find a paper on it online. Not a youtube video, a thorough paper that's in-depth, with mathematical explanations.
At around 4'30": "Everything starts with the word if"
OBVIOUSLY. You want scientists to say "That's just how things are"? That's called brainwashing- no, actually, that's just unscientific and stupid, because absolutely no one in their right mind would believe that. OFCOURSE Newton would always start with "If gravity exists..." He's not just gonna say "Yup, that which I wrote there is true, regardless of whatever happens in the world."
Anyway, I'm getting tired, I'm done, and this was my final contribution to this one-sided debate on whether the Earth is round or flat. My conclusion is: flat Earthers are brainwashed, and their arguments are unscientific and incomplete. They blindly repeat what they hear from others and copy youtube links claiming one is fake and the other is real, while, unbeknownst to them, their assumption and conclusion based on the assumption are the same.
Don't you know that regular people aren't allowed at the South Pole? They don't WANT people finding out for themselves.
@@swansyboy8512 To quote you, "In other words: what they do in education is make you think, and make you doubt the things you hear at first. They don't want you to take their word for it, they want you to prove it yourself."
This is something I've tried to tell people dozens of times when they've come at me with "you were just told that, and you believed it!"
I graduated College in 1998 so, maybe things have changed since then. I got my bachelor's in biological science, which required a lot of science courses. The funny thing is, in all the science classes I had, I don't remember being given many answers. I was always given problems that I had to sort out. I always thought that's how science was taught! Hell, if I was given all the answers, I might have gone ahead for a Masters!
Arguing with a FlErfer is just futile. They're never going to change their stance because their entire personalities are defined by their beliefs. It's what makes them feel special and gives them a sense of superiority. Changing that stance would strip them of those feelings and they WON'T do that. Of course, I'm talking about the general FlErfer. Some of the more intelligent but gullible of them have come around to reality, but only a handful. It's pretty sad.
Thats a nice watch..
It's a crappy watch because the second hand is moving slower than the minute hand 🤣. Why isn't it moving 60X faster like all other functioning watches/clocks on Earth? Maybe you're being sarcastic though.
@@RobertLeavitt-dc4zb no one cares what you think 🤣
@@blahblingo7605 Whatever helps you cope bud 🤣.
The second hand is moving slower than the minute hand 🤣. Why isn't it moving 60X faster like all other functioning watches/clocks on Earth?
Beautiful cartoon sun! 😀
Beautiful butthurt flerf comment.
You guys never disappoint.
Why don't you go there yourself and prove it then?
A simple effect, try it sometime.
www.aliexpress.com/item/32816778137.html
@@kelduck8851 This wasn't done with a star filter, though. It's diffraction spikes caused by the iris mechanism at the aperture; you can see its heptagonal shape in the many reflections. Note how each pair of spikes has a stronger primary opposite a weaker secondary, an effect star filters don't have.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_spike#Diffraction_spikes_due_to_non-circular_aperture
@@0LoneTech Thanks for that, it always good to learn something new.
Amazing!
So, working in a company that manufactures GNSS antennas (GPS, Galileo, BeiDou, etc.) and Iridium antennas, I feel like I smash flat earth BS on a daily basis. Feels good.
Your stuff probably gets put on high altitude helium balloons
@@jordanblake574 Was that sarcasm?
Ignorance is bliss Ricardo... 😉
@@kitcanyon658 You should check out NASA's balloon program. There's no need for satellites in space. In their own words it's more cost effective to run their balloon program than it is to put a satellite in space, according to NASA, not me. Just something to consider.
@@space_audits : Sure, balloons can do some research but only from a limited altitude. And their locations are not precise. So yeah, if all you need is data from less than about 120,000ft and you don't care exactly what position you're holding then you could use a balloon.
However, no balloon will get you large field of view data that are achieved with satellites.
Beautiful!
Thank you for the video.