"Visibility gets progressively more distorted the further you zoom." Meanwhile he's zooming in on a planet millions of miles away with a p900 digital zoom and can't figure out why it looks like garbage.
Most of them ( Flerfs ) come up with something like "rules of perspective" for not seeing far away things hidden by the horizon. Mostly related to sunrise, sunset, moonrise and moonset...
are you even feeling ok? seeing something far from a level ground and the sky is different I swear you floating ball believe are getting dumber by the day
@@erikblaas5826 I found it hilarious when one of his meme images mentioned linear perspective, dynamic perspective, and a pyramidal perspective. I would bet real money that not a single flat earther could actually define what any of those terms actually mean and how you'd calculate them.
Love how he brings up that the ancients used to call the planets “wandering stars”. Yes, exactly! And the Greek word for wandering… drum roll please… planetes. To this day we are still calling them wandering, albeit in Greek. Planet has nothing to do with the planar.
They love using words to justify their belief, as usual, without knowing anything about those words. Apparently, they have their own definition of such words and we should just believe them.
Semantics is a common trick flerf's use to indoctrinate the gullible (and often uneducated) into their way of thinking. They don't see it as indoctrination because they have a conspiratorial mindset, and also they believe they are "fIgHtInG fOr tRuTh"
I guess “do your own research” doesn’t include taking five minutes to figure out the etymology of words. Or to consider that English is not the only language in the world.
Taken pictures of Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, and Venus with my little Celestron Nexstar 130slt with my Canon Rebel T6 attached, the resolution might be aweful but they are recognizable. Alas even my cheap gear is probably beyond what flat earthers would try, astronomy and astrophotography are amazing hobbies and truely humbling when the real scale of everything starts to set in, so much to see even just looking at the moon
@@UNSCPILOT their stupid argument that can easily fixed by focusing the planets is ridiculous. At this point it's just cognitive dissonance and not wanting to know. Such a beautiful hobby, for myself too, is getting ridiculed because they literally can't even roll the Focus wheel. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
I had a flat earther at work challenge me with this. "Have you ever seen the planets with your own eyes with your own camera that look like the NASA pictures" Now he didn't know that I have quite a good telescope and have seen Mars clearly and Jupiter with two of its moons, you can see the storm bands etc I said this too him and he just said sharply "No you havent" How can I argue with that, completely derailed me haha
I love looking at Saturn through my telescope. I can see the shadows from the rings on the surface of the planet. And the positions of the moons over time change in a pattern exactly predicted by orbital mechanics.
"before they were called planets, the ancients referred to them as 'wandering stars'." Yep, and you know what the ancient Greek word for 'wandering star' is? Planetes
I'm sure Eric thinks that the Greeks called them "planes" and free masons come and transformed it into "planetes" You know, to keep us dumbed down adding a few letters.
Flat earthers are always claiming that you can only see planets as out of focus lights in the sky. I have to laugh because I've seen planets through a telescope and I had no problem getting them into focus. I remember the first time I saw Saturn through a telescope if was a truly spectacular sight. I could see it perfectly fine that's a pathetic argument by flat earthers.
@@sttonep242 I know! NASA has a goyant holographic loyser projected on the North pole that projects all the lumini …lumari … shit! … all the loyts in the skoy.
Galileo managed to see that there were 4 moons orbiting Jupiter with his crude lens arrangement. Admittedly there was less light and atmospheric pollution.
I also love that this entire video is a giant strawman fallacy 😂 He complains about the joke by „globe earthers“ in the beginning, but his entire video is creating a strawman argumen claiming we „always“ point to the other planets… as if there weren‘t countless examples of proof for earth‘s shape pointed out to him asside of the other planets
@@duncanvantongeren4646 yes, we have pictures of planet earth BEFORE CGI was invented. Actually, by now the evidence about the earth being a sphere are hundreds, so even without a single picture we are still 110% sure the earth is a globe. Stop this BS
I love how the footage of like Saturn is shaky cam out of focus, meaning not only is the camera being used without knowing how to focus on a star or anything 'that far away' - but it is being HELD instead of on a tripod or otherwise fixed so that it can get a nice clean image!
It's midnight here in Southern California. Can't think of a better way to literally start my day than with SciManDan. Especially with a flat earth fail video! Thanks Bob. I mean Dan. 😂
I think you owe Dan a couple of bob for calling him Bob! He shouldn't have to endure THAT without some kind of compensation -- or at least an apology . . . .
The funny thing is that planet comes from Greek "πλανήτης" and literally means wanderer. Also, the word for star in greek "άστρο" means shining object. So, calling them wondering stars was accurate, especially back then. Fun fact the word plankton also derives from the same greek root word as planet, because plankton describes organisms that drift and wander with the currents and not by their own Flat earth theory is ridiculous
Is and always has been wrong.even in biblical times the sumarians depicted earth as a globe and they had 10 planets in the solar system.still looking for the 10th one.
I love how flat earthers are so completely wrong about literally EVERYTHING, including totally unrelated things like etymology. Not only do they get the planet thing wrong, they make up their own nonsense about "nasa" actually being a Hebrew word meaning "to deceive". These clowns really are clueless.
lol flat earth theory is ridiculous because people called stars wondering stars and planets, and plankton?? lol so that means we living on a floating spinning water rock cannonball 😂
I get what the falling star guy was saying. If you're watching a shooting Star or meteor shower, his claim is that they will exclusively travel "down" towards the horizon, and that we have "never seen a (shooting) star rising up from the horizon". And if that were true, I'd understand his argument. But anyone who's watched a few meteor showers knows that they'll go in all sorts of directions, including "up" from the horizon, they're not all just going straight down. So his claim that we will "never see this in real life" is easily disproven by either searching for Meteor shower videos, or watching some meteor showers for yourself.
For me, the hardest part of understanding what that Flat Earther was saying is because I truly struggle to comprehend the Flat Earth model. None of what they say makes sense to me, because I don't actually understand what they mean when they talk about "horizon", "south", "equator", "up", "down", etc.
@@johncoops6897 There is no flat earth model, even some flat earthers accept that fact. They just claim that the Earth can't be round, but they can't build an alternative model that would explain everything at the same time yet.
The shooting star guy totally scores an own goal with his diagram. If he thought about how constellations of stars or the moon would look from the Northern and Southern Hemisphere he would realise that one would look the other way up, and that’s exactly how it is. In the Southern Hemisphere, Orions sword points up, the rabbit on the face of the full moon is upside down. It freaks my UK in-laws out every time they visit beautiful NZ.😊
I’m still unsure whether he’s that stupid or just such a good liar that he seems like it. Especially considering he described what the word meant. “planētēs” or “wanderer”
and especially when the flat parcel of land is spelled plain and which could also mean ordinary, mundane like.... the plane landed upon the plain plain....
@@mjjoe76 I worked in breweries and wineries for 20 years. I hate using hydrometers, digital densitometers are so much better. Infortunately they cost about 200% more money. Either way I learned how to control a runoff like an artist.
Why is it that flat Earthers, UFO spotters and Big foot hunters all have exactly the same camera skills, shaky hands and potato cameras? I'm going to start a new conspiracy that everything is filmed by the same person.
please, dont put UFO fans on the same plane like flerfers. because ufo fans know that the earth is round and the universe exist so as gravity do. so many ufo videos are clear and not shaky. i for myself have seen many ufos and i have filmed it. UFOs exist. flat earth doesnt.
Ikr..... it's always just fuzzy enough to not be able to discern what it really is. With all the amazing technology we have today, trail cams etc, you think someone would have got a decent photo of bigfoot by now 🤔
The first time I ever knew that there were flat earthers in contemporary society was back in the late 90s when I took an Astronomy course at university. The person took the class to "make us look stupid". Oh boy how that didn't turn out so well for him. The University had its own small planetarium with a good sized telescope and our professor booked it for class one night and we all took turns looking through it. At what, I can't remember. But, needless to say this completely blew the the flearthers' mind. It literally made him think "oh wait those are globes out there. Why wouldn't earth be a globe as well?" He went from being incredulous about the calculations we were learning in class to being absorbed in them. It was amazing to see that this guy I kinda viewed as intellectually stunted was actually very intelligent and inquisitive. I wish I had been more curious at the time to find out how he became a flat earther. This is why the pics are kept out of focus with these morons, because they know that good pictures will create a lot of questions and change minds.
@@aaronTGP_3756 While there is a fair degree of truth to that, flerf echo chambers are different from ideological or political ones, as those are completely subjective. It is easy to question or refute what boils down to personal opinions and beliefs. However, the Earth is objectively spherical regardless of personal beliefs, and there are plenty of ways to prove it. Many (I'd even say most) flerfers know they are part of a grift, although most won't admit it. Some are misled by misguided skepticism of things like space agencies. Some have gone all in on the flat earth con and now have to keep playing the role. Some see it as an opportunity to be the "expert" they could never be in real life. Some do it just for the attention. Fifteen minutes of fame is fifteen minutes of fame, after all. Others realize it can be a profitable grift because there are quite a few suckers out there willing to give their money to charlatans. People like Eric Dubay fall into all of those categories. The internet just makes it easier for charlatans like him to operate.
Sometime in my early 20s I saw my first flat earth video. I knew it was garbage but I couldn't refute any of the claims. It was actually a big turning point for me that drove me to really focus on actually learning the real science behind things not just for myself but in a way I can clearly and simply explain it for others. So in that way I did exactly what alot of those videos suggest, by going and looking it up for yourself.
EXACTLY! A lot of amateur astronomers capture amazing images. High-schoolers and teenagers have captured some of the most detailed photos of the Moon and planets. These ripe idiots have done nothing in life except for scrolling through memes and acting like an obnoxious piece of garbage. With Eric's pathetic low level of intelligence, it's a wonder how he's still managed to keep himself alive. Really shows how science has made modern life way too easy.
lol. I mean I've seen photos of it but they're probably CGI. Come to think of it, I've never actually seen Eric Dubay with my own eyes so he's probably CGI too!
Good job, Dan! Flat earthers cannot claim that you cannot see through very much atmosphere. We can see stars on the horizon that must be farther away than anything on Earth. In their model that requires seeing through tens of thousands of kilometers of air!
Exactly. It's always hilarious when flatty's claim "oUr eYeS cAn oNly sEe a FeW MiLeS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" then get instantly destroyed when I point out they can easily see the sun and moon which, according to FE's 'smartest' brains, are 4,000 miles away. That one always makes them run away.
Agreed, if you're in Australia and look North, you can see stars right above the horizon. In the flat earth model, these are like Christmas tree lights attached to the dome, but the dome would be all the way beyond Antarctica and the ice wall in the opposite side of the circle of the Earth. Way too far to be seen in their "model".
@@chriswatson7965 You don't need cognitive gymnastics when you actually know nothing but believe everything... It's like "I want this or that be that way, therefore everything that claims otherwise is false anyway", same shit with antivaxxers, racists and all those other smallbrained groups...
Dubay says that before they were called planets they were called wandering stars. Planet literally is derived from the Greek word for “wanderer”. It’s more that our understanding has changed, not what we call them
This is like the people who add up random numbers, sure you can find a way to express anything that way, but remember, it's not universal and thus can't be right. In German f.ex. a planet is also a "Planet", but the german "Plane" means blanket or cover, not very telling for me...
A video idea I offer up to anyone who does videos: Eric makes a deal about not measuring a floor by looking at the lights on the ceiling. With a little trigonometry you can do just that.
I mean, if he's talking about shooting stars, then yes, you could easily stand in the right spot and see them "rise" over the horizon. So thanks for that globe proof buddy.
@@simond.455 He said that most FEers agree that earth isn't a flat plane among spherical planets. MOST. I.e, they can't agree. And yes, flat earthers invent many lies that contradict each other.
They can't get their stories straight about what is at the edge of the Earth in Antarctica. Is it an infinite plane or an impenetrable ice wall or the base of the dome? What are the coordinates?
Truth also comes in many versions, for instance; Newton did not make mistakes about the rules of gravity, he just did not know of the rules of relativity which Einstein came up with. Those are both truths althou slightly different where the second is only adjusting the first.
I also love how he talks about how we can't see far away mountains because of smog, buildings, etc. and doesn't realize how that implies that there would be no clear horizon on a flat earth. He was so close, yet so far.
Sci Man Dan and basically all other FE debunkers also forget to mention that longer wavelengths of visible travel further in the atmosphere including near infrared and infrared light and radio waves. If Earth were flat you could zoom in on things on the horizon including Mt Everest from many more km away if we used different types of light to see them! Alas we can't... because the Earth is a globe, but this is something I wish more science-loving folk would bring up regardless as it is yet more ammo against FE. Additionally Sci Man Dan accidentally gave FEers ammo by saying timezones radiate out from the north pole, instead of saying that they radiate out from the poles and meet at the Equator. Timezones are literally divided into 24 hours based loosely on lines of longitude. Small mistake but a critical one especially if FEers were capable of picking up on his error. Despite the fact that FEers probably can't see Sci Man Dan's error, there is no excuse to flub up on such a simple and air-tight debunk. We are literally talking about giving ammo to one of, if not the least scientifically literate crowds out there.
of course there can't be a clear horizon on the flat earth. All their ideas about the sun rotating above it wouldn't work either, if they can't pretend we can't see far enough at night.
@@andysmith1996 There were so many points in the second Dubious video where it was obvious that he had to be lying, that this was a con based on semantics.
I grew up in a country area and had the most amazing night sky due to the darkness. As an adult, I tried some astronomy, attended a full solar eclipse (with a 35mm film camera), and looked at Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn in a Dobsonian scope at about 200x. Definitely not a fuzzy light source and is spherical. Saturn's rings are a stunning item in an eyepiece.
I love how he's like, "We can zoom in on these celestial objects and view them in incredible detail." while at the same time, showing a completely blurry, out of focused image. Flerfs seem to be under the impression that "Zooming in" = "Focusing".
So, to quote Eric himself "Visibility gets progressively more distorted, the future you zoom, until nothing can be discernably resolved!" - This is Eric's own argument to prove a flat earth. So why is Eric using badly zoomed shots of planets to disprove planets are globes 🤦♂️ Flat earthers love to contradict themselves.....!
Here lies the bifurcation point between how camera lens photography and how your eyes would resolve detail in that same exact situation. Ever wonder why the moon looks so tiny in photos but looks quite large to you? Same reason that photo appears to show an endless hallway - presuming that the photo itself isn't altered to show an infinite hallway.
reminds me of the "testing flattards" video by CoolHardLogic. at one point he makes fun of their hallway claim by saying something like, "if you turned the camera sideways, would you see a sideways horizon?"
He used a $35 Christmas refractor telescope. These have horrible optics you would be lucky to see the moon. I have a 10" reflector now and can see Jupiter and the galilean moons and they are spherical.
So true. There's few things that can compare with first light through a good scope. Especially a target like Saturn or Jupiter. Even more so when you've rolled your own scope.
I have a 12" Cassegraine (with a solar filter... best investment yet). I can resolve the Galilean moons, the main Jovian cloud bands and the red spot. It's lovely. But the best part is still solar observations.
4:40 -- the word planet literally derives from a Greek term astéres planḗtai, which means 'wandering star'. So the Greeks called them planets, too. The word is also linguisitically unrelated to the word 'plane', which is derived from a Latin term for flat surface. We didn't just add a t to the word plane and say "ok, now it's a planet', which our friend Eric seems to imply.
You have to love the little hint of excitement in the flerf's voice when they think they've come up with a clever point. Coupled with a self-debunk is just the sweetest thing to witness.
He probably also struggle with daily tasks or thinking and breathing imho he can't do two at the same time. But hey he is awakr and we indoctrinated... Right
He knows alright. He just doesn’t care. He’s making a living out of it, and has flerfers blowing smoke up his azz on line. Plus, if you already “believe” in the “supernatural” then flat Eartherism isn’t that great a step to take.
Or, the other explanation might be that he knows exactly what he's doing, and is doing it to, 'prove', the objects he's looking at in the sky are flat discs. He's either exceedingly disingenuous, or he really is dumb enough to think out of focus and/or over-exposed shots through a telescope show the true shape of planets in the night's sky.
The problem is, he does not care. He has a community of thousand beliefers that buy every crap he tells them... they want to beliefe so hard in Eric, they even buy simple books which have nothing but photographs in them... for humongus prices. Eric is a predator of the dumfounded and he knows it.
4:24 For Erik's images the key word was missing: 'incompetent' The majority of amateur images of Jupiter, Mars and Saturn are impressive, especially the time lapses. If I were at all suspicious, I would say that the images were deliberately taken on deficient equipment in such manner as to bolster someone's assertion specifically to try and keep that cash cow supplying milk. As it is, I am _very_ suspicious, so incompetent requires the extra qualifier 'mendaciously'.
Agreed. Even with his poor defective equipment he nearly got them into focus a couple of times and had to quickly turn his focus wheel the other way in order to keep them out of focus. This guy's not a believer, he's perpetrating a grift.
My neighbor is a religious based flat-earther that has no problem letting anyone and everyone know he is a flat-earther. I tried to be a friend to him since he has completely alienated himself not only with his public displays of extreme ignorance but also with his fondness of insulting anyone that doesn't agree with him, which is everyone. In my attempt at befriending him I took the approach of acting as though I would genuinely hear him out and pretend to consider his arguments. I refrained for a long time from giving him any pushback until he and I had established what resembled a mutual respect but always made it clear that I wasn't sold on the idea of a flat earth. My hope was he would move on from the flat earth discussion and then we could maybe form a real friendship based on things we might have in common or at least could agree on. I finally began to push back a little and point out some very elementary proofs that we don't live under a dome such as satellites, gps, other planets, eclipses, etc, but with each and every proof I gave I was met with the most absurd and ridiculous arguments that made it very clear this guy is an idiot, and not only was it clear he is an idiot, he is also ironically intellectually dishonest. I invited him to use my telescope several times and to catch a glimpse of the ISS and satellites using posted schedules but he always politely declined. And the moment I gave up on our being friends came after I decided to go full SciMan Dan on him and lay out undeniable facts that would force him to either admit he was wrong or just drop the subject entirely so we could find things we do agree on. Instead he did neither, he started arguing points that made no sense whatsoever like "who's ever seen water stick to a ball" or "then why ain't people in South America walking around upside down", and using terminology that he clearly had just made up in his mind as to make it appear I was too stupid to understand why he was right like "then the suns vertical rays would cross the terminus", and insulting me with lines like "only a fucking re***d would believe we live on a globe". Finally out of patience I finally told him that I will never ever agree with him because I agree with science, logic, facts, and centuries of accumulated knowledge instead of something so easily proven wrong as the earth being flat, but as he is my neighbor I genuinely would like for he and I to have a friendship and for him to please drop the whole flat earth thing and let's move on to something else, anything else please. His response was, and I quote "I don't want friends that are spreading the devils lies and think it's ok to let little kids grow up believing we live on a ball flying around space, you can worship the sun without me". So to conclude this real life true story I leave with this, you flat earthers are the most insufferable, intellectually bankrupt, ignorant group of uneducated imbeciles to have ever existed on this ball flying through space, and you deserve every bit of the ridicule, insults and mockery your pea brains get.
I'm sorry that some fellow believers are so ignorant (not that anyone is perfect). The Bible actually implies the earth is spherical, too, but for some reason most people don't know that. Also, just because the sun is in the center of the solar system doesn't mean we have to worship it. He's putting things together that don't actually go together. Some of the things they say actually limit God in some ways, as if He couldn't make a universe (or even planets) so vast that we can't understand it (them).
Watched the Starliner launch today. Amazing how all those scientists, engineers, technicians work so hard to keep the conspiracy going.🙄 How up yourself are you flerfers, to think this is done for you.
Even more amazing, these tens of thousands of people (scientists, technicians, astronauts/cosmonauts, pilots, sailors, astronomers, etc.) are STILL maintaining the supposed conspiracy after a century of manned flight and over half a century of space flight. Humans SUCK at keeping secrets, and we don't even have "deathbed confessions" breaking the supposed conspiracy.
"Like magicians distracting you with one hand, while fooling you with the other" Ah, you mean like Mitchell from Australia and the upwardly extending zoom of his P900, Eric?
Hello Dan, on the sprouts school channel, I just found a fantastic video explaining Dietrich Bonhoeffers "theory of stupidity". His essay stands in a far more gruesome context - i.e. the Holocaust. But his thoughts are very well presented in the video and I find them most intriguing. In particular his distinction between intellect (or the lack thereof) and stupidity caught my attention. It brought me one step closer to understanding just why some people (e.g. flerfs) don't get it. Best regards Goetz
Thanks Dan! I was lost on the 3rd one until you pointed out that he thought the equator IS the horizon. Their minds are so susceptible to finding equivalencies where there are none, with all that conspiracy theory practice.
The out of focus shots with a straight face really gets on my nerves. With thousands upon thousands of amateur astronomers documenting excellent views of planets, these are either professional liars or clinically insane.
On occasions we have seen them coming up with new ….. errrrr 🙄…. evidence, getting debunked and coming up with something new. I guess they have run out of arguments and “evidence” and just repeats the same derp over and over again, which in Eric’s case is repeating obvious lies and profound misinterpretations and misunderstanding over and over again. It is indeed getting, not only boring, but as you say, having a negative effect on the nerve systems. Professional??? Maybe by making money from their YT channels, but in the sense of “profession” …. 😂
dan i just wanna say from the bottom of my heart THANK YOU so much for continuing to out these idiots in the open my faith in humanity gets somewhat restored every time you add your own 2 cents to these morons poking fun at them keep up the good work sir we need more debunkers and less conspiracy nut jobs
@@purefoldnz3070 they know the earth is round as well.... they just pretend to believe it is not to get some attention and to fill the void in their existences
@9:52 "..hills, mountains, buildings, trees and 'anewburble' other objects in the way.." Eric is a perpetual font of knowledge, I just learnt the word 'anewburble' and I can't wait to impress my friends by using it in conversation! Hooray for Eric and his drooling waffle!!
Flat-Earth spawns from Unhealthy-Relgion. And Unhealthy Religion is the Atheist-UA-camr's Job to over. Ever thought about it like that? Ever considered Channel like Creaky Blinder, also covering Flat-Earth; may be an Intersection you can use to get into Channel like Holy Koolaid, GMS, and Logicked? I mean, you could find-out Atheist-Channel are just right or you if you like Dan so much.
In Eric's first video, he says when viewing the planets though a telescope, the planets do not have much detail and look like lights so it shows we can't prove they are spherical. But then in his second video he says we can zoom into the planets with a telescope and show high amounts of detail which would not be possible if they were far away, and he uses the same video footage from the first video when saying they had no detail. How can planets have little to no detail to prove one thing, but with the same footage they have large amounts of detail to prove something different?
This sums up the whole flerf "argument" in a nutshell. Reality apparently changes whenever it's convenient for their argument; they need a different model or other batshit insane unprovable ad hoc reasoning made up on the spot (such as "magnetic" jargon or "personal star domes") to explain each real-life phenomenon, which in contrast the globe explains literally every observation we can make in ONE model. We don't need to make a different version of the globe to explain every observation we can make unlike the pizza world "model", so even if you ignore all the scientific evidence you can independently verify, just purely by occam's razor principle the globe model makes infinitely more sense.
For the Greenland guy. When I have a submarine break through the ice at the north pole, the sub spans 24 time zones. Same with a snowmobile on the south pole.
I don't really get what he's going on about anyway, since even flat earthers admit longitude lines converge on the north pole. And if hes saying the Mercator map is the real flat one, then his arguments about Greenland's size is self-defeating.
@@barrylangille3523 also I realised time zones are meaningless when you discover the earth didnt decide them, the countries did We don't control the sun We control what time it is Thats why there's timezones with just perfect intervals for simplicity
@@TheFirstWoffle yes! It always gets me that people think "the new year" is somehow a real thing and not something we made up. Days of the week are even less real.
Umm, did Eric just put up a screen with "refraction" listed in it to try and prove that he can't see mountains on a flat earth, while simultaneously having claimed that refraction doesn't exist because you can see a ship when you zoom in? 🤦♂🤦♂🤦♂🤦♂🤦♂🤦♂
I live in an area where there is a primary shipping lane just over the horizon. it's kind of cool seeing the top half of a ship totally unaffected by the "perspective" that makes the bottom half disappear.
I have seen the bands and spots of Jupiter (including the big red one) with a good refractor telescope. And I am absolutely an amateur. Drove my happy self to a nearby elevated and dark place and voila! Easily seen. If you can't afford a good refractor, meet up with the local astronomy club. They are always happy to show off their toys.
Thanks for the face palm warning Dan. It was certainly needed, a lot, again. Especially that guy talking about the shooting stars 🤪 Keep fighting the good fight 🙏
I'm not a native english speaker, but it seems "falling star" and "shooting star" are synonymes in astronomy. So I'm sure he ment those. To counter his argument, here's a timelapse video which contains several shooting stars "going up". Around 20 seconds in is the first one: ua-cam.com/video/rAqBvVAi5ck/v-deo.html At 33 seconds is a nice one
After this brilliant course about perspective, I really hope Eric Dubay will take the time to debunk every flat earther who talks about crepuscular rays!
20+ years ago, a friend of mine got a Meade ETX. He had it set up on a picnic table in his backyard. Jupiter and Saturn were both visible that night and the view we got through that little $800 telescope was so clear. This guy needs to use something other than his Canon Rebel with autofocus.
So hang on… Earth is a flat coin? So is he saying that all the other ‘planets’ in our Milky Way are flat coins as well? That all just happen to directly face our flat coin? Wow that’s convenient!
"Only in NASA" *how* do these guys not know that astronomers were seeing planets and photographing them for the last several *hundred* years before NASA even existed?
Technically they weren't photographing them for the last several hundred years! Apart from that I agree, and it always makes me laugh that they omit the hundreds (or more) years of astronomical observations.
We have accurate sketches of Saturn from the 1600s proving people 400+ years ago had better skills in focusing a telescope that this Earache guy and his pathetic friends. Still waiting for his next claim, that NASA time-travelled back to the medieval ages and brainwashed them to make those sketches. The low-life flerfs will buy anything.
5:25 His analogy actually kind of works against him. Imagine inviting a guy to measure your floor, but instead he measures the ceiling. He's... kind of not wrong is he? Cause there's gonna be floor under the ceiling. If you have a square shaped room, your floor AND your ceiling will be square shaped. Same for any other shape. So even in his own analogy, you CAN find out things about the floor by looking up. Inferring the shape of the Earth from the other planets is just a simple deduction. All the planets are spherical. The Earth is also a planet. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that the Earth is also spherical. Now, I'll agree with Eric that in order for that argument to work, you first have to prove that the Earth is just another planet. You have to prove that the Earth is not special in any way. And that's Eric's problem with the argument, he thinks we are special, we are the promised land gifted to us by sky daddy. So yeah, the argument doesn't actually really prove the Earth, I agree Eric. Good thing we have thousands of other proofs eh? Like a fricking picture of the Earth!
You can put a mark on your ceiling and the angles from measured distances from a point directly below it, use it to determine if your floor is flat or not. Dubay knows the shape of the Earth is calculated using the stars, which is why he denies it. Back in 1735, by very carefully measuring the distance between two points where the zenith of a star differed by one degree, was how they found the Earth was not a perfect sphere.
You haven't worked in construction or as a wall painter, have you? In rooms, there's no right angle and no side is parallel to any other, so the ceiling definitely doesn't have the same area as the floor. It might have a simliar shape, but ceilings usually aren't as flat as floors, they have rounded edges and bulges, etc.
@@anlumo1 Ah, you're right, I haven't considered walls that aren't at a right angle :D. However, if I observe that all the walls are at a right angle and the ceilings are flat, then I can determine the shape of the floor right? My point was that you don't need to look at the floor to determine its shape, you can infer it from the walls and the ceiling.
@@tommy_svk If you know all angles and lengths except the floor's, you can derive them, yeah. However, flat earth has a dome on top, which is more complicated to calculate (also, they've never provided even a basic math formula on its exact shape).
Sure! They point to the stars and proclaim "look! My eyes can only see a few miles, yet I can see stars, so they must be a few miles away!" I wish I was joking.
I can't see bacteria, that is proof they don't exist. I've never met a flerfer, that is proof they don't exist. It doesn't work this way, does it? So so sad.
They can point their P900 cameras at the stars and say they must be local because the camera made them bigger and fuzzy. They really should learn how to focus.
@@OriginalPiMan to be fair, even at optimal focus, the stars would start to look fuzzy, due to signal bleeding on their shitty sensor, cause most stars they would try to focus are too bright for that not to occur.
"Traditional heliocentric model". Well, the geocentric one is even more traditional. It goes back some 2500 years ago and... has also a spherical Earth
@@unduloid And we also have some great radar pictures of the shape of some asteroids, passing close to Earth in the million of km range, made by the late Arecibo radio observatory !
Every time one of those clowns claims that you can't see objects beyond a certain distance, I feel my blood pressure rising, because that is complete garbage. The eye registers light, regardless of how far the photons did have to travel to reach it, as long as the intesitiy of the light is sufficiently high to cause our light senisitive cells to react - and of course as long as the light is not drowned in other light from that direction. 1/60th of a degree (i.e. 1 arc minute) is the maximum resolution our eyes can handle (due to our pupil being an aperture causing diffraction), but you can see smaller things, albeit as a simple dot of light of about 1 acr minute diameter. That is why all stars seem to be of the same size (fun fact, they aren't), because our eye can't resolve their true angular size properly. See e.g. Rayleigh Criterion for a more detailed explanation. So to sum it up, you can see something regardless of distance for as long as its light is sufficiently intense, but you can only see details (including its true diameter) down to a diameter of about 1/60th of a degree, otherwise it will appear as a 1 arc minute dot. If you think otherwise then place a candle in on open space (e.g. a stadion) at night and walk away from it. The light will not suddenly vanish when you get about 75 meters away...
@@skipfred not at all. The atmosphere (or anything in between capable of absorbing light) reduces the light intensity, sure. But that is irrelevant. It all boils down to how much light reaches the eye. If it is enough to be perceived, it doesn't matter how far it has travelled. Why don't you see a cent from a kilometer away? Because the coin doesn't emit much light, the intensity of this bit of light is reduced by distance (double the distance, you get a quarter of the light intensity) and it is basically drowned by surrounding light (in broad daylight, your eyes are flooded with light from everywhere, drowning any weak light sources, but if you rest your eyes in a closed, completely dark room for several hours - boring, I know ;-) - you can actually perceive single photons). Put a sufficiently powerfull lightsource of the same size as a cent (or smaller, like a powerfull LED) on the same spot, and you see a dot of light. Same size, same distance, different amount of light... and voila, you can see it. You can't make out any details, but you see the spot of light. The photons hitting the eye don't come with any travel informations, they just come with an amount of energy. As long as enough of them hit the eye (in relation to the surrounding light), you can see something. How far the photons have travelled and how big their source was do not change that...
@@sonargast At some distance, especially where there is significant haze / fog / pollution, no photons will get through. The same as with denser local fog. Additionally, scattering by small particles occurs, which diffuses the light in random directions, and will also make any objects an unresolvable blur at some distance.
@@skipfred Is my English that bad? I did not deny that light gets absorbed, scattered or reduced in intensity while traveling. And sure, you might have on one day such a dense fog that you can't see anything beyond arm's reach, and on a clear winter night you can see a candle for miles. But the FE claim made in the clip was "you can't see things beyond 3000 times their diameter" (btw. without specifying any atmospheric conditions, just as a matter of geometry) and that is plain wrong. To see or not to see (sorry, Shakespeare) is not a question of what way / how far the light traveled but whether enough light hits our eyes. Just take the headlights of a car at night. Lets say, a good old VW Beetle, light diameter 17.8 cm. Do you really think that just for geometric reasons the headlights wouldn't be visible beyond 534 meters (and yes, assuming that the air is clear, no fog etc...)?
@@sonargast What the flerf in the video said isn't relevant. I'm responding to what you said, which is "Every time one of those clowns claims that you can't see objects past a certain distance...". Well, you couldn't see objects past a certain distance on a flat Earth even with a telescope. Angular size has nothing to do with it. I'm sure it's well past 3000 times the diameter of anything that exists on Earth, but there are "certain distances" of any length, my friend.
I have a 12 inch Catadioptric Telescope and have a cottage towards the end of a 35 mile long lake which is between 3/4 to 1.5 miles wide along its length and I can visibly see the falling away of the horizon as I look down the lake. You can zoom in and actually see sail boats drop over the horizon, something which wouldn’t occur on a flat earth, and you cannot see the other end of the lake; you can zoom in quite well and see cottages on the shore line but cannot anything at the “top” of the water. Given the first persons argument about size and view-ability I should clearly be able to see buildings at the end of the lake. With the tracking mount I can also get great and clear pictures of the planets and can even see them rotating demonstrating that they’re round; and I can also quite clearly see the international space station as it flys by. What’s more I recall repeating the old shadow experiment to demonstrate and calculate the circumference of the earth when I was a youth in scouts, along with gaining a quite thorough understanding of declination differences between true and magnetic north. I find the flat earthers just amazing as they seem to want to go back in time before our understanding of science has expanded and find the fact that they just refuse to do some basic experiments that can demonstrate the truth that the world in round just amazing and a real demonstration of cognitive issues. Science doesn’t prove or disprove of god, belief in god is about faith not science and the two are not mutually exclusive; I believe in god and science and my masters level education allows me to better understand my surrounding but doesn’t eliminate or weaken my belief in the divine.
The footage Dubay showed for Saturn actually shows that it is spherical, one can observe the rings going behind what appears to be a flat circle and then returning to join back up as a ring. Unless Saturn was a black hole this is not possible
Tell the Greenland guy that he has failed to realize that the time zone bands are also expanded on the map. If you shrink Greenland to the correct proportions, you must also bring the time zone lines closer together.
The strange thing is, a similar effect occurs in the Antipodean countries, Australia has 3 time zones for example, which means it should be at least an 4100 miles from east to west, yet it is actually 2250 miles. Perhaps the Antipodean sun travels more slowly, so Australia would have 45 hour days.
@cambridgemart2075 kind of ironic comment because on the fictional flat earth model the sun must be travelling at roughly 1,600mph along the Tropic of Capricorn on the Southern Summer Solstice at a time when Australia actually has 5 different time zones (2 extra due to daylight saving). High noon on the East and West Coast should be only 80 minutes apart on the fictional flat earth model.
I wonder how the guy with the shooting stars argument explains that the moon looks upside down in the Southern Hemisphere when compared to how it looks in the North. I can’t see how flat earthers explain it except by claiming Australia is fake or whatever
And half of africa, indonesia and most of southern america. That's essentially around 30% of the world that the evil antarctica nasa nazi penguins made up.
It's not the best argument either really, you can literally just look up and twist your head and it will appear that way. Besides for how they perceive the moon as an object floating above earth somewhere around the equator it might still appear very similarly. I'm not a flat earther but it isn't really evidence to support either side. I didn't realize this until the last creaky video when someone else commented about it, but they had a point. There are ways you can make it work from both points of view and it's actually a pretty substantial oversight on our part.
2 роки тому
The best part is that where he placed the fireworks in his example, they would in fact look like they are rising on either side.
@@DeathBYDesign666 it’s an argument. Sure if you stand on your head in the Southern Hemisphere you can make the moon look like it does in the north but the point is that shouldn’t be necessary on a flat earth
"Only in NASA and other official space agency footage do the planets appear like three dimensional globular worlds." Not true. Once again, Eric, as with many flat Earthers, does not realize just how far backyard telescopes have come. Incidentally, Eric was recently going on about how school textbooks teach us that Columbus was the first person to cross the Atlantic and reach the Americas, which he tried to tie into some absurd argument. A lot of us tried to teach him about Leif Erikson and show him that Leif is very much in school textbooks, and he deleted all our comments!
I seen the title and thought “ 36, how many more of these videos can be made? How many more years will this continue? “ after that second to last one I laughed and realized there will can be many many more!
Legend has it that ERIC was born with no access to mirrors or reflective surfaces. Throughout his life he noticed everyone around him was human. The things he could observe of himself and others pointed out to him (human hands, legs, etc) meant he was likely a human also, BUT ERIC used his amazing intellect and deductive logic to conclude: He was a banana! 🤦🏻♂️ Obviously the similarities to the humans around him had no connection with his self representation. 🤷🏻♂️
6:20 proving the shape of the earth by looking to the objects in the sky? yes we absolutely can do that, not by their shape being round of course..but i think it was professor dave who absolutely hammered in the fact that the motions and positions of EVERYTHING up there doesn't make any sense on a flat earth. So here's Eric Dubay proving that mediocre yoga teacher was the apex of his capabilities
7:43 Pareidolia sure is fun! In that Hubble picture I see, left pillar, bottom to top, A baby elephant, the face of a bear, a Faust hand puppet, a cat with a girls face next to it, a weird deep sea fish, a puppet face with beady eyes and a bulbous red nose, a dobermann mage and something with tentacles. Second pillar, a face 1/3 of the way up and the top third looks like a moldy hamster with a red nose and the right pillar and its arch looks like a flying squirrel. 8:00 If we couldn't see Mt Everest we should at least be able to see why we couldn't see it, successively more distant mountains should gradually fade out, varying amounts on different days, and any that remained visible should remain unblocked (depending on relative heights).
Woflie6020 did a great video recently where he demonstrates that just by changing your elevation you can see more/less of a distant object (in his case, a lighthouse). Can't be atmospheric haze or pollution if all you have to do is climb up 20m to make part of the object visible. But of course flerfs think that 'perspective' and 'angular size' work differently in the horizontal and vertical directions (with no proof of this). So they just babble away, lying to their followers as usual.
I love flat earthers. They remind me of things I discovered as a toddler 😀 "When I go cross-eyed, I can see what's behind my brother's He-Man action figure! Instead of one head, it now has two heads that I can see through!! I can even close my eyes one at a time and make the head move without touching it!"
in the second one I love how Eric literally describes why you don't / can't see the curvature on the horizon, because our eyes are incapable of perceiving that small of a change.
2:28 No. "Planet" is coming from the grec "planētēs" who mean "vagabond " when "plan" is coming from the latin "planus". Words are like humans : your lookalike is not necessarily from your family.
Flerfs don't realise that the very act of looking at the horizon and declaring "looks flat from here, therefor flat erf" is itself one massive logical fallacy.
As usual, flat eathers can't scale. He has no idea how close to earth a meteorite has to be before it ignites. And probably no clue how small most of them are.
The guy talking about "falling stars" wasn't referring to stars rising or setting. He was referring to "shooting stars." His error is that he thinks these stars are moving thru the ENTIRE sky of the earth - for great distances so that you would see it like half the earth sees the sun or moon at the same time. He doesn't grasp that the shooting star is local, as in only a small portion of the planet can see it.
"In amateur footage" nope, just check Instagram, there are a lot of backyard astronomers posting pictures 👍 Oh and btw, a P1000 is enough to catch Jupiter's moons... You just need to know how to use it 😂
"Visibility gets progressively more distorted the further you zoom." Meanwhile he's zooming in on a planet millions of miles away with a p900 digital zoom and can't figure out why it looks like garbage.
No he says those pictures of planets are high quality and in best focus 🤣😂😆😁 8:35
FLAT EARTHERS: "You cant see Everest because it's too far away to see!"
ALSO FLAT EARTHERS: "Look, here's the Moon and Saturn."
Most of them ( Flerfs ) come up with something like "rules of perspective" for not seeing far away things hidden by the horizon. Mostly related to sunrise, sunset, moonrise and moonset...
are you even feeling ok? seeing something far from a level ground and the sky is different I swear you floating ball believe are getting dumber by the day
@@erikblaas5826 I found it hilarious when one of his meme images mentioned linear perspective, dynamic perspective, and a pyramidal perspective. I would bet real money that not a single flat earther could actually define what any of those terms actually mean and how you'd calculate them.
It's like you can't pay someone to be this stupid
Flat earthers should be interdicted
Love how he brings up that the ancients used to call the planets “wandering stars”. Yes, exactly! And the Greek word for wandering… drum roll please… planetes. To this day we are still calling them wandering, albeit in Greek. Planet has nothing to do with the planar.
Yes the "wandering" movement was just their orbit around sun, which looked less regular perhaps due to our own changing orbit/perspective
They love using words to justify their belief, as usual, without knowing anything about those words. Apparently, they have their own definition of such words and we should just believe them.
Semantics is a common trick flerf's use to indoctrinate the gullible (and often uneducated) into their way of thinking. They don't see it as indoctrination because they have a conspiratorial mindset, and also they believe they are "fIgHtInG fOr tRuTh"
I guess “do your own research” doesn’t include taking five minutes to figure out the etymology of words. Or to consider that English is not the only language in the world.
So they have as much understanding of history is they do of science, none whatsoever. What a surprise.
Space Agency with advanced telescope: *shows planets*
Some guy in their backyard with a pair on binoculars: no, false
Taken pictures of Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, and Venus with my little Celestron Nexstar 130slt with my Canon Rebel T6 attached, the resolution might be aweful but they are recognizable.
Alas even my cheap gear is probably beyond what flat earthers would try, astronomy and astrophotography are amazing hobbies and truely humbling when the real scale of everything starts to set in, so much to see even just looking at the moon
@@UNSCPILOT their stupid argument that can easily fixed by focusing the planets is ridiculous. At this point it's just cognitive dissonance and not wanting to know. Such a beautiful hobby, for myself too, is getting ridiculed because they literally can't even roll the Focus wheel. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
this comment is wrong
My man doesn‘t have binoculars, he has the Canon P1000 truth camera!!!!😂
I had a flat earther at work challenge me with this.
"Have you ever seen the planets with your own eyes with your own camera that look like the NASA pictures"
Now he didn't know that I have quite a good telescope and have seen Mars clearly and Jupiter with two of its moons, you can see the storm bands etc
I said this too him and he just said sharply "No you havent"
How can I argue with that, completely derailed me haha
i see blur so it has to be blur ~ guy without glasses
I love looking at Saturn through my telescope. I can see the shadows from the rings on the surface of the planet. And the positions of the moons over time change in a pattern exactly predicted by orbital mechanics.
By the way, Eric, I have experimented with some rather nice telescopes. And I'm still asking the question.
"before they were called planets, the ancients referred to them as 'wandering stars'."
Yep, and you know what the ancient Greek word for 'wandering star' is?
Planetes
@UCuVp4hd7I3eouQ6U9Yyz7mA uh... ok?
French language is derived from Greek and latin.
Guess how we spell planets in French ??
"Planetes"
Go figure...
I'm sure Eric thinks that the Greeks called them "planes" and free masons come and transformed it into "planetes"
You know, to keep us dumbed down adding a few letters.
AND they thought sperm was the baby and males put it inside woman during sex for it to grow.
Eric Dubay is so infuriating that I honestly believe he could drown himself with his own word salad
I honestly hope that is possible
He would surely drown in a carpool!
Edit: *FUCK* google for *CENSORING MY REPLIES!*
I think he's already did so, air can't get into his brain and he's lost every ounce of knowledge or common sense he may or may not have had
@@Groxcima Did Eric Dumbay ever have any knowledge?
Lol
Flat earthers are always claiming that you can only see planets as out of focus lights in the sky. I have to laugh because I've seen planets through a telescope and I had no problem getting them into focus. I remember the first time I saw Saturn through a telescope if was a truly spectacular sight. I could see it perfectly fine that's a pathetic argument by flat earthers.
What you saw was a sticker made by nasa and glued to the dome 😂😂😂😂
"but but that's just a projection cast on the sky by technology I have no proof or explanation of"
@@sttonep242 I know! NASA has a goyant holographic loyser projected on the North pole that projects all the lumini …lumari … shit! … all the loyts in the skoy.
It looks like magical spinning ethereal energies, so it is.
Galileo managed to see that there were 4 moons orbiting Jupiter with his crude lens arrangement. Admittedly there was less light and atmospheric pollution.
Eric is the very definition of the Dunning-Kruger effect. He’s come up with his own fallacies, names for objects, etc… It’s truly amazing.
Globism is a synomyn for idiot
I was crying real tears of joy when he said “appeal to the sky fallacy”. I can’t get enough of these idiots.
“We have witnessed it being round from space.”
TOO funny! 🤣🤣🤣
Ever seen ONE real picture of earth from space? 😜🤔😂🤦🏻
I also love that this entire video is a giant strawman fallacy 😂
He complains about the joke by „globe earthers“ in the beginning, but his entire video is creating a strawman argumen claiming we „always“ point to the other planets…
as if there weren‘t countless examples of proof for earth‘s shape pointed out to him asside of the other planets
@@duncanvantongeren4646 yes, we have pictures of planet earth BEFORE CGI was invented. Actually, by now the evidence about the earth being a sphere are hundreds, so even without a single picture we are still 110% sure the earth is a globe. Stop this BS
I love how the footage of like Saturn is shaky cam out of focus, meaning not only is the camera being used without knowing how to focus on a star or anything 'that far away' - but it is being HELD instead of on a tripod or otherwise fixed so that it can get a nice clean image!
It's midnight here in Southern California. Can't think of a better way to literally start my day than with SciManDan. Especially with a flat earth fail video! Thanks Bob. I mean Dan. 😂
What about sexy time with SciManDan.
2hrs ago was midnight?????
Fuck America's school lmao got Damm
I think you owe Dan a couple of bob for calling him Bob! He shouldn't have to endure THAT without some kind of compensation -- or at least an apology . . . .
@@richardrodriguez6184 In California, yes.
The funny thing is that planet comes from Greek "πλανήτης" and literally means wanderer. Also, the word for star in greek "άστρο" means shining object. So, calling them wondering stars was accurate, especially back then.
Fun fact the word plankton also derives from the same greek root word as planet, because plankton describes organisms that drift and wander with the currents and not by their own
Flat earth theory is ridiculous
πλανήτης also known as planetes, sometimes peapole forget that a language can evolve from others :D
Is and always has been wrong.even in biblical times the sumarians depicted earth as a globe and they had 10 planets in the solar system.still looking for the 10th one.
I love how flat earthers are so completely wrong about literally EVERYTHING, including totally unrelated things like etymology. Not only do they get the planet thing wrong, they make up their own nonsense about "nasa" actually being a Hebrew word meaning "to deceive". These clowns really are clueless.
@@frankbennett2278 still looking for a ninth one after Pluto got down graded.
lol flat earth theory is ridiculous because people called stars wondering stars and planets, and plankton?? lol
so that means we living on a floating spinning water rock cannonball 😂
I get what the falling star guy was saying. If you're watching a shooting Star or meteor shower, his claim is that they will exclusively travel "down" towards the horizon, and that we have "never seen a (shooting) star rising up from the horizon". And if that were true, I'd understand his argument. But anyone who's watched a few meteor showers knows that they'll go in all sorts of directions, including "up" from the horizon, they're not all just going straight down. So his claim that we will "never see this in real life" is easily disproven by either searching for Meteor shower videos, or watching some meteor showers for yourself.
No need for random shooting stars, take satellites or even planes, they will "rise up, above and down" in one go haha
For me, the hardest part of understanding what that Flat Earther was saying is because I truly struggle to comprehend the Flat Earth model. None of what they say makes sense to me, because I don't actually understand what they mean when they talk about "horizon", "south", "equator", "up", "down", etc.
Flat Earth Banjo seemed to be claiming that the equator represents the horizon.
@@johncoops6897 There is no flat earth model, even some flat earthers accept that fact. They just claim that the Earth can't be round, but they can't build an alternative model that would explain everything at the same time yet.
@@Mandelbrot_Set No, he wasn't.
The shooting star guy totally scores an own goal with his diagram. If he thought about how constellations of stars or the moon would look from the Northern and Southern Hemisphere he would realise that one would look the other way up, and that’s exactly how it is. In the Southern Hemisphere, Orions sword points up, the rabbit on the face of the full moon is upside down. It freaks my UK in-laws out every time they visit beautiful NZ.😊
Eric provides me with some good reasons to advocate for the teaching of ancient Greek language in high schools. "Plane-t", it killed me.
Me, too!🤣 it’s almost as bad as when Nathan Thompson would talk about sea level on emphasizing SEE level.🤣
I’m still unsure whether he’s that stupid or just such a good liar that he seems like it. Especially considering he described what the word meant. “planētēs” or “wanderer”
and especially when the flat parcel of land is spelled plain and which could also mean ordinary, mundane like.... the plane landed upon the plain plain....
"Falling Stars", are NOT STARS. They are rocks. That guy is so dense he broke my hydrometer. (Science joke) ;)
As a home brewer…I understood that reference. 🙂
I ate a butterfly once. It tasted horrible.
@@mjjoe76 I worked in breweries and wineries for 20 years. I hate using hydrometers, digital densitometers are so much better. Infortunately they cost about 200% more money. Either way I learned how to control a runoff like an artist.
A sealion isnt a lion either...
A seahorse isnt a horse... etc etc.
People make up stuff as names to talk about it more easely ..
Fe have no clue
Why is it that flat Earthers, UFO spotters and Big foot hunters all have exactly the same camera skills, shaky hands and potato cameras? I'm going to start a new conspiracy that everything is filmed by the same person.
What is a potato camera ….. wait …🤔 … I get it I get it! 😀
please, dont put UFO fans on the same plane like flerfers. because ufo fans know that the earth is round and the universe exist so as gravity do. so many ufo videos are clear and not shaky. i for myself have seen many ufos and i have filmed it. UFOs exist. flat earth doesnt.
Well, not all Flerfs have the same camera skills and own potatoes for cameras. Some have Nikon P900s, and manage to F-up using the autofocus.
Ikr..... it's always just fuzzy enough to not be able to discern what it really is. With all the amazing technology we have today, trail cams etc, you think someone would have got a decent photo of bigfoot by now 🤔
The Bigfoot photo's are not caused by the camera. There's a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside.
The first time I ever knew that there were flat earthers in contemporary society was back in the late 90s when I took an Astronomy course at university. The person took the class to "make us look stupid". Oh boy how that didn't turn out so well for him. The University had its own small planetarium with a good sized telescope and our professor booked it for class one night and we all took turns looking through it. At what, I can't remember. But, needless to say this completely blew the the flearthers' mind. It literally made him think "oh wait those are globes out there. Why wouldn't earth be a globe as well?" He went from being incredulous about the calculations we were learning in class to being absorbed in them. It was amazing to see that this guy I kinda viewed as intellectually stunted was actually very intelligent and inquisitive. I wish I had been more curious at the time to find out how he became a flat earther. This is why the pics are kept out of focus with these morons, because they know that good pictures will create a lot of questions and change minds.
Education is a powerful tool. But it needs to show the bigger picture as well. We get so tunnelvisioned sometimes.
That is a very interesting story. Thank you for sharing!
However, in the early 2020s, this is near impossible. Flerfs now have online echo chambers.
@@aaronTGP_3756 While there is a fair degree of truth to that, flerf echo chambers are different from ideological or political ones, as those are completely subjective. It is easy to question or refute what boils down to personal opinions and beliefs. However, the Earth is objectively spherical regardless of personal beliefs, and there are plenty of ways to prove it. Many (I'd even say most) flerfers know they are part of a grift, although most won't admit it. Some are misled by misguided skepticism of things like space agencies. Some have gone all in on the flat earth con and now have to keep playing the role. Some see it as an opportunity to be the "expert" they could never be in real life. Some do it just for the attention. Fifteen minutes of fame is fifteen minutes of fame, after all. Others realize it can be a profitable grift because there are quite a few suckers out there willing to give their money to charlatans. People like Eric Dubay fall into all of those categories. The internet just makes it easier for charlatans like him to operate.
That cannot be typical. The morons we see peddling this twaddle are morons, not Stephen Hawkings who have just been misinformed.
Sometime in my early 20s I saw my first flat earth video. I knew it was garbage but I couldn't refute any of the claims. It was actually a big turning point for me that drove me to really focus on actually learning the real science behind things not just for myself but in a way I can clearly and simply explain it for others. So in that way I did exactly what alot of those videos suggest, by going and looking it up for yourself.
"In amateur footage" - Eric, the word you were looking for was "Incompetent" not "Amateur".
EXACTLY!
A lot of amateur astronomers capture amazing images. High-schoolers and teenagers have captured some of the most detailed photos of the Moon and planets. These ripe idiots have done nothing in life except for scrolling through memes and acting like an obnoxious piece of garbage. With Eric's pathetic low level of intelligence, it's a wonder how he's still managed to keep himself alive. Really shows how science has made modern life way too easy.
Speaking of Mt. Everest, how does Dubay know it exists, since he can't see it from where he is? Has he been there himself?
lol. I mean I've seen photos of it but they're probably CGI. Come to think of it, I've never actually seen Eric Dubay with my own eyes so he's probably CGI too!
And what if Mount Everest is CGI ?
@@OlivierGabin Climbing Giant Inclines?
@@OlivierGabin what?
@@briwood6328 Is irony a little beyond you ?
Good job, Dan! Flat earthers cannot claim that you cannot see through very much atmosphere. We can see stars on the horizon that must be farther away than anything on Earth. In their model that requires seeing through tens of thousands of kilometers of air!
That's a brilliant observation. I wonder what cognitive gymnastics they'd have to pull to get out of that one.
Exactly. It's always hilarious when flatty's claim "oUr eYeS cAn oNly sEe a FeW MiLeS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" then get instantly destroyed when I point out they can easily see the sun and moon which, according to FE's 'smartest' brains, are 4,000 miles away.
That one always makes them run away.
Agreed, if you're in Australia and look North, you can see stars right above the horizon. In the flat earth model, these are like Christmas tree lights attached to the dome, but the dome would be all the way beyond Antarctica and the ice wall in the opposite side of the circle of the Earth. Way too far to be seen in their "model".
@@chriswatson7965 "I wonder what cognitive gymnastics they'd have to pull to get out of that one."
I think this is one of those "because god" answers.
@@chriswatson7965 You don't need cognitive gymnastics when you actually know nothing but believe everything... It's like "I want this or that be that way, therefore everything that claims otherwise is false anyway", same shit with antivaxxers, racists and all those other smallbrained groups...
Dubay says that before they were called planets they were called wandering stars. Planet literally is derived from the Greek word for “wanderer”. It’s more that our understanding has changed, not what we call them
This is like the people who add up random numbers, sure you can find a way to express anything that way, but remember, it's not universal and thus can't be right. In German f.ex. a planet is also a "Planet", but the german "Plane" means blanket or cover, not very telling for me...
Also: Friction used to be 'gremlins', a pile of rags would spontaneously generate rats, disease was caused by "bad humours"...
Added to which the same "ancients" soon worked out that the Earth was a sphere.
A video idea I offer up to anyone who does videos: Eric makes a deal about not measuring a floor by looking at the lights on the ceiling. With a little trigonometry you can do just that.
Flat Earther: define trigonometry. Where's your triangle? How can you do trigonometry on a triangle with a curved adjacent?
I mean, if he's talking about shooting stars, then yes, you could easily stand in the right spot and see them "rise" over the horizon. So thanks for that globe proof buddy.
"Most flat earthers agree"
"Truth has only one version, where a lie has many"
I must have missed on what topic "most flat earthers agree".
They contradict each other (and even themselves) on every possible occasion.
@@simond.455 He said that most FEers agree that earth isn't a flat plane among spherical planets. MOST. I.e, they can't agree.
And yes, flat earthers invent many lies that contradict each other.
Like religion...
They can't get their stories straight about what is at the edge of the Earth in Antarctica. Is it an infinite plane or an impenetrable ice wall or the base of the dome? What are the coordinates?
Truth also comes in many versions, for instance;
Newton did not make mistakes about the rules of gravity, he just did not know of the rules of relativity which Einstein came up with. Those are both truths althou slightly different where the second is only adjusting the first.
Dan, you should do a top ten favourite flat earth fails from yours years of compiling them.
I would love this!
A Flat Earth Fail Compilation Compilation!
I also love how he talks about how we can't see far away mountains because of smog, buildings, etc. and doesn't realize how that implies that there would be no clear horizon on a flat earth. He was so close, yet so far.
all obstructions would be irrelevant from an airplane flying just a few thousand feet up, let alone miles.
Sci Man Dan and basically all other FE debunkers also forget to mention that longer wavelengths of visible travel further in the atmosphere including near infrared and infrared light and radio waves.
If Earth were flat you could zoom in on things on the horizon including Mt Everest from many more km away if we used different types of light to see them!
Alas we can't... because the Earth is a globe, but this is something I wish more science-loving folk would bring up regardless as it is yet more ammo against FE.
Additionally Sci Man Dan accidentally gave FEers ammo by saying timezones radiate out from the north pole, instead of saying that they radiate out from the poles and meet at the Equator. Timezones are literally divided into 24 hours based loosely on lines of longitude. Small mistake but a critical one especially if FEers were capable of picking up on his error. Despite the fact that FEers probably can't see Sci Man Dan's error, there is no excuse to flub up on such a simple and air-tight debunk. We are literally talking about giving ammo to one of, if not the least scientifically literate crowds out there.
"He was so close, yet so far." He knows the earth is a globe. He's just a conman.
of course there can't be a clear horizon on the flat earth. All their ideas about the sun rotating above it wouldn't work either, if they can't pretend we can't see far enough at night.
@@andysmith1996 There were so many points in the second Dubious video where it was obvious that he had to be lying, that this was a con based on semantics.
I grew up in a country area and had the most amazing night sky due to the darkness. As an adult, I tried some astronomy, attended a full solar eclipse (with a 35mm film camera), and looked at Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn in a Dobsonian scope at about 200x. Definitely not a fuzzy light source and is spherical. Saturn's rings are a stunning item in an eyepiece.
I love how he's like, "We can zoom in on these celestial objects and view them in incredible detail." while at the same time, showing a completely blurry, out of focused image. Flerfs seem to be under the impression that "Zooming in" = "Focusing".
So, to quote Eric himself "Visibility gets progressively more distorted, the future you zoom, until nothing can be discernably resolved!" - This is Eric's own argument to prove a flat earth. So why is Eric using badly zoomed shots of planets to disprove planets are globes 🤦♂️
Flat earthers love to contradict themselves.....!
Love that "you can't even see to the end of a hallway" thing. If i had a telescope, i think i'd be able to manage it
Even a cheap pair of binoculars.
Eric could also easily zoom in with his Nikon, but it would be unfortunately out of focus.
Here lies the bifurcation point between how camera lens photography and how your eyes would resolve detail in that same exact situation. Ever wonder why the moon looks so tiny in photos but looks quite large to you? Same reason that photo appears to show an endless hallway - presuming that the photo itself isn't altered to show an infinite hallway.
I'd like to know what building has a hallway like that. That image looks like cgi.
reminds me of the "testing flattards" video by CoolHardLogic.
at one point he makes fun of their hallway claim by saying something like, "if you turned the camera sideways, would you see a sideways horizon?"
He used a $35 Christmas refractor telescope. These have horrible optics you would be lucky to see the moon. I have a 10" reflector now and can see Jupiter and the galilean moons and they are spherical.
@Dan Sheppard .
I remember that moment, it's when, no matter that you accept what you are told, reality still hits you.
i bought a 4.5 inch reflector 41 years ago and that was enough to get the same result.
So true. There's few things that can compare with first light through a good scope. Especially a target like Saturn or Jupiter. Even more so when you've rolled your own scope.
I have a 12" Cassegraine (with a solar filter... best investment yet). I can resolve the Galilean moons, the main Jovian cloud bands and the red spot. It's lovely.
But the best part is still solar observations.
Very cool!
4:40 -- the word planet literally derives from a Greek term astéres planḗtai, which means 'wandering star'. So the Greeks called them planets, too. The word is also linguisitically unrelated to the word 'plane', which is derived from a Latin term for flat surface. We didn't just add a t to the word plane and say "ok, now it's a planet', which our friend Eric seems to imply.
You have to love the little hint of excitement in the flerf's voice when they think they've come up with a clever point. Coupled with a self-debunk is just the sweetest thing to witness.
A rare depiction of a real life Father Dougle.... "This one is small, but the one's out there, are faaaaaar awaaay"
Haha.. perfect analogy
It's not only focus Eric is struggling with, exposure too. He has no idea how hard people are laughing.
And we've all had too much exposure to Eric.
He probably also struggle with daily tasks or thinking and breathing imho he can't do two at the same time. But hey he is awakr and we indoctrinated... Right
He knows alright. He just doesn’t care. He’s making a living out of it, and has flerfers blowing smoke up his azz on line. Plus, if you already “believe” in the “supernatural” then flat Eartherism isn’t that great a step to take.
Or, the other explanation might be that he knows exactly what he's doing, and is doing it to, 'prove', the objects he's looking at in the sky are flat discs. He's either exceedingly disingenuous, or he really is dumb enough to think out of focus and/or over-exposed shots through a telescope show the true shape of planets in the night's sky.
The problem is, he does not care. He has a community of thousand beliefers that buy every crap he tells them... they want to beliefe so hard in Eric, they even buy simple books which have nothing but photographs in them... for humongus prices. Eric is a predator of the dumfounded and he knows it.
4:24 For Erik's images the key word was missing: 'incompetent'
The majority of amateur images of Jupiter, Mars and Saturn are impressive, especially the time lapses. If I were at all suspicious, I would say that the images were deliberately taken on deficient equipment in such manner as to bolster someone's assertion specifically to try and keep that cash cow supplying milk. As it is, I am _very_ suspicious, so incompetent requires the extra qualifier 'mendaciously'.
Agreed. Even with his poor defective equipment he nearly got them into focus a couple of times and had to quickly turn his focus wheel the other way in order to keep them out of focus. This guy's not a believer, he's perpetrating a grift.
He can somehow focus on Saturn, but "can't" get focus on the other plants.
Dan, I absolutely love your content and the way you make science so easily understandable! Thank you!
My neighbor is a religious based flat-earther that has no problem letting anyone and everyone know he is a flat-earther. I tried to be a friend to him since he has completely alienated himself not only with his public displays of extreme ignorance but also with his fondness of insulting anyone that doesn't agree with him, which is everyone. In my attempt at befriending him I took the approach of acting as though I would genuinely hear him out and pretend to consider his arguments. I refrained for a long time from giving him any pushback until he and I had established what resembled a mutual respect but always made it clear that I wasn't sold on the idea of a flat earth. My hope was he would move on from the flat earth discussion and then we could maybe form a real friendship based on things we might have in common or at least could agree on. I finally began to push back a little and point out some very elementary proofs that we don't live under a dome such as satellites, gps, other planets, eclipses, etc, but with each and every proof I gave I was met with the most absurd and ridiculous arguments that made it very clear this guy is an idiot, and not only was it clear he is an idiot, he is also ironically intellectually dishonest. I invited him to use my telescope several times and to catch a glimpse of the ISS and satellites using posted schedules but he always politely declined. And the moment I gave up on our being friends came after I decided to go full SciMan Dan on him and lay out undeniable facts that would force him to either admit he was wrong or just drop the subject entirely so we could find things we do agree on. Instead he did neither, he started arguing points that made no sense whatsoever like "who's ever seen water stick to a ball" or "then why ain't people in South America walking around upside down", and using terminology that he clearly had just made up in his mind as to make it appear I was too stupid to understand why he was right like "then the suns vertical rays would cross the terminus", and insulting me with lines like "only a fucking re***d would believe we live on a globe". Finally out of patience I finally told him that I will never ever agree with him because I agree with science, logic, facts, and centuries of accumulated knowledge instead of something so easily proven wrong as the earth being flat, but as he is my neighbor I genuinely would like for he and I to have a friendship and for him to please drop the whole flat earth thing and let's move on to something else, anything else please. His response was, and I quote "I don't want friends that are spreading the devils lies and think it's ok to let little kids grow up believing we live on a ball flying around space, you can worship the sun without me". So to conclude this real life true story I leave with this, you flat earthers are the most insufferable, intellectually bankrupt, ignorant group of uneducated imbeciles to have ever existed on this ball flying through space, and you deserve every bit of the ridicule, insults and mockery your pea brains get.
I'm sorry that some fellow believers are so ignorant (not that anyone is perfect). The Bible actually implies the earth is spherical, too, but for some reason most people don't know that. Also, just because the sun is in the center of the solar system doesn't mean we have to worship it. He's putting things together that don't actually go together. Some of the things they say actually limit God in some ways, as if He couldn't make a universe (or even planets) so vast that we can't understand it (them).
i’ve often wondered how it would sound if we actually spoke through our arse thanks Eric
You can always ask a politician to talk...
Watched the Starliner launch today.
Amazing how all those scientists, engineers, technicians work so hard to keep the conspiracy going.🙄
How up yourself are you flerfers, to think this is done for you.
They are desperate to be special! It's truly sad!
Well put
Even more amazing, these tens of thousands of people (scientists, technicians, astronauts/cosmonauts, pilots, sailors, astronomers, etc.) are STILL maintaining the supposed conspiracy after a century of manned flight and over half a century of space flight.
Humans SUCK at keeping secrets, and we don't even have "deathbed confessions" breaking the supposed conspiracy.
"Like magicians distracting you with one hand, while fooling you with the other"
Ah, you mean like Mitchell from Australia and the upwardly extending zoom of his P900, Eric?
Hello Dan,
on the sprouts school channel, I just found a fantastic video explaining Dietrich Bonhoeffers "theory of stupidity".
His essay stands in a far more gruesome context - i.e. the Holocaust.
But his thoughts are very well presented in the video and I find them most intriguing.
In particular his distinction between intellect (or the lack thereof) and stupidity caught my attention.
It brought me one step closer to understanding just why some people (e.g. flerfs) don't get it.
Best regards
Goetz
Well thats quite apt actually since Eric Dubay is literally a denier that it ever took place.
Thanks Dan! I was lost on the 3rd one until you pointed out that he thought the equator IS the horizon. Their minds are so susceptible to finding equivalencies where there are none, with all that conspiracy theory practice.
These professional liars get on my nerves.
The out of focus shots with a straight face really gets on my nerves. With thousands upon thousands of amateur astronomers documenting excellent views of planets, these are either professional liars or clinically insane.
On occasions we have seen them coming up with new ….. errrrr 🙄…. evidence, getting debunked and coming up with something new. I guess they have run out of arguments and “evidence” and just repeats the same derp over and over again, which in Eric’s case is repeating obvious lies and profound misinterpretations and misunderstanding over and over again.
It is indeed getting, not only boring, but as you say, having a negative effect on the nerve systems.
Professional??? Maybe by making money from their YT channels, but in the sense of “profession” …. 😂
dan i just wanna say from the bottom of my heart THANK YOU so much for continuing to out these idiots in the open my faith in humanity gets somewhat restored every time you add your own 2 cents to these morons poking fun at them keep up the good work sir we need more debunkers and less conspiracy nut jobs
Dubay: All semantics, zero proof. What am I talking, it's all the flat earthers.
Dubay: don't believe scientists believe me a professional yoga instructor.
@@purefoldnz3070 and among the FEers he is one of the most accomplished
@@kskdtr that's telling a lot.
@@kskdtr and the most deluded
@@purefoldnz3070 they know the earth is round as well.... they just pretend to believe it is not to get some attention and to fill the void in their existences
It's sad as well as funny how well you've named this series, as they really are compilations of so very many flat earth fails, LOL!
@9:52 "..hills, mountains, buildings, trees and 'anewburble' other objects in the way.."
Eric is a perpetual font of knowledge, I just learnt the word 'anewburble' and I can't wait to impress my friends by using it in conversation! Hooray for Eric and his drooling waffle!!
Flat-Earth spawns from Unhealthy-Relgion.
And Unhealthy Religion is the Atheist-UA-camr's Job to over.
Ever thought about it like that? Ever considered Channel like Creaky Blinder, also covering Flat-Earth; may be an Intersection
you can use to get into Channel like Holy Koolaid, GMS, and Logicked? I mean, you could find-out Atheist-Channel are just right or you if you like Dan so much.
In Eric's first video, he says when viewing the planets though a telescope, the planets do not have much detail and look like lights so it shows we can't prove they are spherical. But then in his second video he says we can zoom into the planets with a telescope and show high amounts of detail which would not be possible if they were far away, and he uses the same video footage from the first video when saying they had no detail. How can planets have little to no detail to prove one thing, but with the same footage they have large amounts of detail to prove something different?
How? Because _Flat Earth_ , you silly thing.
Flerf Logic is a curse. But good for a laugh (with sufficient facepalm protection, of course).
Perhaps we need to start calling them something else, Inconsistent Earthers.
Failing, Inconsistent, Lying Earthers: FILthers.
@@docostler - LOL @ FILthers
This sums up the whole flerf "argument" in a nutshell. Reality apparently changes whenever it's convenient for their argument; they need a different model or other batshit insane unprovable ad hoc reasoning made up on the spot (such as "magnetic" jargon or "personal star domes") to explain each real-life phenomenon, which in contrast the globe explains literally every observation we can make in ONE model. We don't need to make a different version of the globe to explain every observation we can make unlike the pizza world "model", so even if you ignore all the scientific evidence you can independently verify, just purely by occam's razor principle the globe model makes infinitely more sense.
Two words for flat earthers.
Spherical Trigonometry.
Never circumnavigate without it.
Or ... y'know, go ahead. (shhh we won't miss them lol)
“But TRIgonometry is ONLY for TRIangles!”
-anonymous flerf
@@FallenRaven Triangles have points, so flerfs won't get it.
@@FallenRaven dang u got me
For the Greenland guy.
When I have a submarine break through the ice at the north pole, the sub spans 24 time zones. Same with a snowmobile on the south pole.
I don't really get what he's going on about anyway, since even flat earthers admit longitude lines converge on the north pole. And if hes saying the Mercator map is the real flat one, then his arguments about Greenland's size is self-defeating.
Fun fact Antarctica has time zones
@@barrylangille3523 also I realised time zones are meaningless when you discover the earth didnt decide them, the countries did
We don't control the sun
We control what time it is
Thats why there's timezones with just perfect intervals for simplicity
@@TheFirstWoffle yes! It always gets me that people think "the new year" is somehow a real thing and not something we made up. Days of the week are even less real.
@@TheFirstWoffle I suppose 24 zones - but not 42, the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything.
Surely I should grab myself a drink BEFORE I sit down and buckle up for another great SciManDan🙂 video!
I have to admit that l never thought we would have THIS many episodes of this fantastic show, but l enjoy every single one
ugh, I wasn't prepared for that much DooBay this early in the morning. Just listening to his voice, I can feel the will to live draining out of me.
At least he's not as bad as LEO.
@@barrylangille3523 LEO is hugely annoying but doesn't bother me in the same way at all
Umm, did Eric just put up a screen with "refraction" listed in it to try and prove that he can't see mountains on a flat earth, while simultaneously having claimed that refraction doesn't exist because you can see a ship when you zoom in? 🤦♂🤦♂🤦♂🤦♂🤦♂🤦♂
I live in an area where there is a primary shipping lane just over the horizon. it's kind of cool seeing the top half of a ship totally unaffected by the "perspective" that makes the bottom half disappear.
yep, they seem to think "refraction" is some sort of SENTIENT FORCE that intentionally fakes EVERYTHING WE SEE.
Compilation 36! Flerfs have said enough stupid to make 36 episodes!
Sad thing is, this is still going with no sign of ending anytime soon:/
I have seen the bands and spots of Jupiter (including the big red one) with a good refractor telescope. And I am absolutely an amateur. Drove my happy self to a nearby elevated and dark place and voila! Easily seen.
If you can't afford a good refractor, meet up with the local astronomy club. They are always happy to show off their toys.
Thanks for the face palm warning Dan. It was certainly needed, a lot, again. Especially that guy talking about the shooting stars 🤪 Keep fighting the good fight 🙏
I'm not a native english speaker, but it seems "falling star" and "shooting star" are synonymes in astronomy. So I'm sure he ment those. To counter his argument, here's a timelapse video which contains several shooting stars "going up". Around 20 seconds in is the first one:
ua-cam.com/video/rAqBvVAi5ck/v-deo.html
At 33 seconds is a nice one
After this brilliant course about perspective, I really hope Eric Dubay will take the time to debunk every flat earther who talks about crepuscular rays!
Haven't felt well for the last few weeks. This video made me laugh so much, I actually feel better now. Thank you for this video.
Get well soon!
The Nikon P900/P1000 and other "superzoom" cameras should have this warning on the box; "Adult supervision is required to use this product"
20+ years ago, a friend of mine got a Meade ETX. He had it set up on a picnic table in his backyard. Jupiter and Saturn were both visible that night and the view we got through that little $800 telescope was so clear. This guy needs to use something other than his Canon Rebel with autofocus.
My wonky sleep schedule is good for something after all, catching this content early!
So hang on… Earth is a flat coin? So is he saying that all the other ‘planets’ in our Milky Way are flat coins as well? That all just happen to directly face our flat coin? Wow that’s convenient!
commented the same thing, but i can see now i wasn't the first one to discover this flaw of their reasoning 😅
@@barret8 brilliant eh!
He would most likely tell you that space is totally fake
“This makes no sense”…. The most famous words of flatties. Their understanding is equal to a 5 years old.
That’s a bit harsh on the 5 year olds!
@@ThoughtandMemory 😂😂😂
Hey my 5 year old knew the shape of the earth. Stop putting them down to Eric's level. :D
4:58 "... it is completely irrelevant, what shape the OTHER planets are..."
So he does acknowledge, that earth is a planet.
"Only in NASA" *how* do these guys not know that astronomers were seeing planets and photographing them for the last several *hundred* years before NASA even existed?
Technically they weren't photographing them for the last several hundred years! Apart from that I agree, and it always makes me laugh that they omit the hundreds (or more) years of astronomical observations.
We have accurate sketches of Saturn from the 1600s proving people 400+ years ago had better skills in focusing a telescope that this Earache guy and his pathetic friends.
Still waiting for his next claim, that NASA time-travelled back to the medieval ages and brainwashed them to make those sketches. The low-life flerfs will buy anything.
5:25 His analogy actually kind of works against him. Imagine inviting a guy to measure your floor, but instead he measures the ceiling. He's... kind of not wrong is he? Cause there's gonna be floor under the ceiling. If you have a square shaped room, your floor AND your ceiling will be square shaped. Same for any other shape. So even in his own analogy, you CAN find out things about the floor by looking up.
Inferring the shape of the Earth from the other planets is just a simple deduction. All the planets are spherical. The Earth is also a planet. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that the Earth is also spherical. Now, I'll agree with Eric that in order for that argument to work, you first have to prove that the Earth is just another planet. You have to prove that the Earth is not special in any way. And that's Eric's problem with the argument, he thinks we are special, we are the promised land gifted to us by sky daddy. So yeah, the argument doesn't actually really prove the Earth, I agree Eric. Good thing we have thousands of other proofs eh? Like a fricking picture of the Earth!
You can put a mark on your ceiling and the angles from measured distances from a point directly below it, use it to determine if your floor is flat or not.
Dubay knows the shape of the Earth is calculated using the stars, which is why he denies it. Back in 1735, by very carefully measuring the distance between two points where the zenith of a star differed by one degree, was how they found the Earth was not a perfect sphere.
You haven't worked in construction or as a wall painter, have you? In rooms, there's no right angle and no side is parallel to any other, so the ceiling definitely doesn't have the same area as the floor. It might have a simliar shape, but ceilings usually aren't as flat as floors, they have rounded edges and bulges, etc.
@@anlumo1 Ah, you're right, I haven't considered walls that aren't at a right angle :D. However, if I observe that all the walls are at a right angle and the ceilings are flat, then I can determine the shape of the floor right? My point was that you don't need to look at the floor to determine its shape, you can infer it from the walls and the ceiling.
@@tommy_svk If you know all angles and lengths except the floor's, you can derive them, yeah. However, flat earth has a dome on top, which is more complicated to calculate (also, they've never provided even a basic math formula on its exact shape).
@@anlumo1 Well yeah, the Flerfers can't determine the shape of the Earth by looking at the sky. Globers can though, that's my point.
Best series on youtube. Thank you Dan for entertainment and education, I've learned a lot from you.
okay, so if stars are not millions of miles away, can flatearthers prove that they are not? provide some measurements maybe? evidence?
Sure! They point to the stars and proclaim "look! My eyes can only see a few miles, yet I can see stars, so they must be a few miles away!"
I wish I was joking.
I can't see bacteria, that is proof they don't exist.
I've never met a flerfer, that is proof they don't exist.
It doesn't work this way, does it? So so sad.
They can point their P900 cameras at the stars and say they must be local because the camera made them bigger and fuzzy.
They really should learn how to focus.
They can't even produce an accurate flat map which, if you're recording points on a flat plane, should be the easiest thing in the world to do.
@@OriginalPiMan to be fair, even at optimal focus, the stars would start to look fuzzy, due to signal bleeding on their shitty sensor, cause most stars they would try to focus are too bright for that not to occur.
You cannot see Mount Everest from every place on Earth but you can surely see Eric Dubay on the Dunning-Kruger peak from the whole universe.
"Traditional heliocentric model". Well, the geocentric one is even more traditional. It goes back some 2500 years ago and... has also a spherical Earth
Actually, if the earth were flat we should still be able to detect Mt. Everest from anywhere on the surface using _radar._
Now THAT's a good point.
radar isnt infinte range though. It scathers so that would still be hard as fuck
@@Nordic_Mechanic
Hard, yes, bot not impossible. Remember: we use radar to determine the distance to the _sun!_
@@unduloid And we also have some great radar pictures of the shape of some asteroids, passing close to Earth in the million of km range, made by the late Arecibo radio observatory !
@@unduloid That just isn't true
Every time one of those clowns claims that you can't see objects beyond a certain distance, I feel my blood pressure rising, because that is complete garbage. The eye registers light, regardless of how far the photons did have to travel to reach it, as long as the intesitiy of the light is sufficiently high to cause our light senisitive cells to react - and of course as long as the light is not drowned in other light from that direction.
1/60th of a degree (i.e. 1 arc minute) is the maximum resolution our eyes can handle (due to our pupil being an aperture causing diffraction), but you can see smaller things, albeit as a simple dot of light of about 1 acr minute diameter. That is why all stars seem to be of the same size (fun fact, they aren't), because our eye can't resolve their true angular size properly. See e.g. Rayleigh Criterion for a more detailed explanation.
So to sum it up, you can see something regardless of distance for as long as its light is sufficiently intense, but you can only see details (including its true diameter) down to a diameter of about 1/60th of a degree, otherwise it will appear as a 1 arc minute dot.
If you think otherwise then place a candle in on open space (e.g. a stadion) at night and walk away from it. The light will not suddenly vanish when you get about 75 meters away...
You're forgetting about the atmosphere
@@skipfred not at all. The atmosphere (or anything in between capable of absorbing light) reduces the light intensity, sure.
But that is irrelevant. It all boils down to how much light reaches the eye. If it is enough to be perceived, it doesn't matter how far it has travelled.
Why don't you see a cent from a kilometer away? Because the coin doesn't emit much light, the intensity of this bit of light is reduced by distance (double the distance, you get a quarter of the light intensity) and it is basically drowned by surrounding light (in broad daylight, your eyes are flooded with light from everywhere, drowning any weak light sources, but if you rest your eyes in a closed, completely dark room for several hours - boring, I know ;-) - you can actually perceive single photons).
Put a sufficiently powerfull lightsource of the same size as a cent (or smaller, like a powerfull LED) on the same spot, and you see a dot of light. Same size, same distance, different amount of light... and voila, you can see it. You can't make out any details, but you see the spot of light.
The photons hitting the eye don't come with any travel informations, they just come with an amount of energy. As long as enough of them hit the eye (in relation to the surrounding light), you can see something. How far the photons have travelled and how big their source was do not change that...
@@sonargast At some distance, especially where there is significant haze / fog / pollution, no photons will get through. The same as with denser local fog. Additionally, scattering by small particles occurs, which diffuses the light in random directions, and will also make any objects an unresolvable blur at some distance.
@@skipfred Is my English that bad? I did not deny that light gets absorbed, scattered or reduced in intensity while traveling. And sure, you might have on one day such a dense fog that you can't see anything beyond arm's reach, and on a clear winter night you can see a candle for miles.
But the FE claim made in the clip was "you can't see things beyond 3000 times their diameter" (btw. without specifying any atmospheric conditions, just as a matter of geometry) and that is plain wrong.
To see or not to see (sorry, Shakespeare) is not a question of what way / how far the light traveled but whether enough light hits our eyes.
Just take the headlights of a car at night. Lets say, a good old VW Beetle, light diameter 17.8 cm. Do you really think that just for geometric reasons the headlights wouldn't be visible beyond 534 meters (and yes, assuming that the air is clear, no fog etc...)?
@@sonargast What the flerf in the video said isn't relevant. I'm responding to what you said, which is "Every time one of those clowns claims that you can't see objects past a certain distance...". Well, you couldn't see objects past a certain distance on a flat Earth even with a telescope. Angular size has nothing to do with it. I'm sure it's well past 3000 times the diameter of anything that exists on Earth, but there are "certain distances" of any length, my friend.
I've looked through an amateur's telescope and seen Saturn and Mars for myself, they don't look anything like Eric's out of focus blobs.
I have a 12 inch Catadioptric Telescope and have a cottage towards the end of a 35 mile long lake which is between 3/4 to 1.5 miles wide along its length and I can visibly see the falling away of the horizon as I look down the lake. You can zoom in and actually see sail boats drop over the horizon, something which wouldn’t occur on a flat earth, and you cannot see the other end of the lake; you can zoom in quite well and see cottages on the shore line but cannot anything at the “top” of the water. Given the first persons argument about size and view-ability I should clearly be able to see buildings at the end of the lake. With the tracking mount I can also get great and clear pictures of the planets and can even see them rotating demonstrating that they’re round; and I can also quite clearly see the international space station as it flys by. What’s more I recall repeating the old shadow experiment to demonstrate and calculate the circumference of the earth when I was a youth in scouts, along with gaining a quite thorough understanding of declination differences between true and magnetic north. I find the flat earthers just amazing as they seem to want to go back in time before our understanding of science has expanded and find the fact that they just refuse to do some basic experiments that can demonstrate the truth that the world in round just amazing and a real demonstration of cognitive issues. Science doesn’t prove or disprove of god, belief in god is about faith not science and the two are not mutually exclusive; I believe in god and science and my masters level education allows me to better understand my surrounding but doesn’t eliminate or weaken my belief in the divine.
The footage Dubay showed for Saturn actually shows that it is spherical, one can observe the rings going behind what appears to be a flat circle and then returning to join back up as a ring. Unless Saturn was a black hole this is not possible
Tell the Greenland guy that he has failed to realize that the time zone bands are also expanded on the map. If you shrink Greenland to the correct proportions, you must also bring the time zone lines closer together.
The strange thing is, a similar effect occurs in the Antipodean countries, Australia has 3 time zones for example, which means it should be at least an 4100 miles from east to west, yet it is actually 2250 miles.
Perhaps the Antipodean sun travels more slowly, so Australia would have 45 hour days.
@cambridgemart2075 kind of ironic comment because on the fictional flat earth model the sun must be travelling at roughly 1,600mph along the Tropic of Capricorn on the Southern Summer Solstice at a time when Australia actually has 5 different time zones (2 extra due to daylight saving). High noon on the East and West Coast should be only 80 minutes apart on the fictional flat earth model.
I wonder how the guy with the shooting stars argument explains that the moon looks upside down in the Southern Hemisphere when compared to how it looks in the North. I can’t see how flat earthers explain it except by claiming Australia is fake or whatever
dude thinks the equator is the horizon. he's not gonna explain shit.
And half of africa, indonesia and most of southern america. That's essentially around 30% of the world that the evil antarctica nasa nazi penguins made up.
It's not the best argument either really, you can literally just look up and twist your head and it will appear that way. Besides for how they perceive the moon as an object floating above earth somewhere around the equator it might still appear very similarly. I'm not a flat earther but it isn't really evidence to support either side. I didn't realize this until the last creaky video when someone else commented about it, but they had a point. There are ways you can make it work from both points of view and it's actually a pretty substantial oversight on our part.
The best part is that where he placed the fireworks in his example, they would in fact look like they are rising on either side.
@@DeathBYDesign666 it’s an argument. Sure if you stand on your head in the Southern Hemisphere you can make the moon look like it does in the north but the point is that shouldn’t be necessary on a flat earth
"Only in NASA and other official space agency footage do the planets appear like three dimensional globular worlds." Not true. Once again, Eric, as with many flat Earthers, does not realize just how far backyard telescopes have come. Incidentally, Eric was recently going on about how school textbooks teach us that Columbus was the first person to cross the Atlantic and reach the Americas, which he tried to tie into some absurd argument. A lot of us tried to teach him about Leif Erikson and show him that Leif is very much in school textbooks, and he deleted all our comments!
The longer it goes on, the more it becomes clear that people like Dubay are in it for the grift.
yes, dubay ALWAYS deletes ALL negative comments, AND accuses all globers of doing the same!
Those telescope images are precious. They don't even know how to properly focus. Smh
I seen the title and thought “ 36, how many more of these videos can be made? How many more years will this continue? “ after that second to last one I laughed and realized there will can be many many more!
It's REALLY sad.
Legend has it that ERIC was born with no access to mirrors or reflective surfaces. Throughout his life he noticed everyone around him was human. The things he could observe of himself and others pointed out to him (human hands, legs, etc) meant he was likely a human also, BUT ERIC used his amazing intellect and deductive logic to conclude: He was a banana! 🤦🏻♂️
Obviously the similarities to the humans around him had no connection with his self representation. 🤷🏻♂️
Is that actually an effigy of Banana Eric in Matt Powell's back yard ?
#FreeDrPeel
Is Dr Peel not actually alone?
Thanks SciManDan.Love from Finland.
Shoutout to Finland
6:20 proving the shape of the earth by looking to the objects in the sky? yes we absolutely can do that, not by their shape being round of course..but i think it was professor dave who absolutely hammered in the fact that the motions and positions of EVERYTHING up there doesn't make any sense on a flat earth. So here's Eric Dubay proving that mediocre yoga teacher was the apex of his capabilities
7:43 Pareidolia sure is fun!
In that Hubble picture I see, left pillar, bottom to top, A baby elephant, the face of a bear, a Faust hand puppet, a cat with a girls face next to it, a weird deep sea fish, a puppet face with beady eyes and a bulbous red nose, a dobermann mage and something with tentacles. Second pillar, a face 1/3 of the way up and the top third looks like a moldy hamster with a red nose and the right pillar and its arch looks like a flying squirrel.
8:00 If we couldn't see Mt Everest we should at least be able to see why we couldn't see it, successively more distant mountains should gradually fade out, varying amounts on different days, and any that remained visible should remain unblocked (depending on relative heights).
Woflie6020 did a great video recently where he demonstrates that just by changing your elevation you can see more/less of a distant object (in his case, a lighthouse). Can't be atmospheric haze or pollution if all you have to do is climb up 20m to make part of the object visible. But of course flerfs think that 'perspective' and 'angular size' work differently in the horizontal and vertical directions (with no proof of this). So they just babble away, lying to their followers as usual.
I am ready to facepalm, bring it on!
I love flat earthers. They remind me of things I discovered as a toddler 😀 "When I go cross-eyed, I can see what's behind my brother's He-Man action figure! Instead of one head, it now has two heads that I can see through!! I can even close my eyes one at a time and make the head move without touching it!"
in the second one I love how Eric literally describes why you don't / can't see the curvature on the horizon, because our eyes are incapable of perceiving that small of a change.
That "Thanks Bob," comment never gets old. Thanks Dan.
2:28 No. "Planet" is coming from the grec "planētēs" who mean "vagabond " when "plan" is coming from the latin "planus".
Words are like humans : your lookalike is not necessarily from your family.
Lol, accusing globe earthers of the Strawman fallacy while committing every other one ... including the Strawman
Flerfs don't realise that the very act of looking at the horizon and declaring "looks flat from here, therefor flat erf" is itself one massive logical fallacy.
The dude talking about stars actually gave me a headache. How does someone score this high on the Dunning-Kruger scale?
As usual, flat eathers can't scale. He has no idea how close to earth a meteorite has to be before it ignites. And probably no clue how small most of them are.
The guy talking about "falling stars" wasn't referring to stars rising or setting. He was referring to "shooting stars."
His error is that he thinks these stars are moving thru the ENTIRE sky of the earth - for great distances so that you would see it like half the earth sees the sun or moon at the same time. He doesn't grasp that the shooting star is local, as in only a small portion of the planet can see it.
@@OGKenG His error was that he was thinking. Period. 😂
Been binging these lately. Sad to see them go but nothing can last forever
Great work Dan.
I think Eric has hit a new level of crazyness.
"In amateur footage" nope, just check Instagram, there are a lot of backyard astronomers posting pictures 👍
Oh and btw, a P1000 is enough to catch Jupiter's moons... You just need to know how to use it 😂