Is Earth the wrong size?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 апр 2023
- To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DaveMcKeegan/. The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription.
Please consider supporting the channel by making purchases through my Amazon affiliates: geni.us/Affiliate
PATREON: / davemckeegan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Music by Bensound.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
#moon #moonlandings #apollo #earth #photgraphy 
Наука
Dear flat earth community, this is what "do your own research" looks like.
WHAT?!? Are you telling me that watching a few dozen memes isn't high grade scientific research!?
@@PabloSanchez-qu6ib Only if you wear a lab coat.
Literally, yet the concept never seems to sink in for them. Accurately and honestly testing their ideas would break their cult though.
And an egg, the egg is very important for science.
Rob skiba proved the moon photo a fake years ago.
I actually never knew this about cameras. Thanks to the flat earthers for enabling me to actually learn something!
Flat earthers are making me learn so much facts and science! 😂
Flerfies gonna flerf.
I know what you mean. We leant a lot when we prove people wrong
Same here. I learned something about cameras that I did not know. I knew it was more complicated than just putting two photos side by side, but not how complicated.
Basically it's why in movies they can make the moon huge, whereas if you use your phone to get a picture of it, it's just a little dot.
This guy has a lot of class. No yelling, no name calling or insults, he simply lets the facts speak for themselves.
unlike every flat earther
The insults are fun sometimes
Reminds me of what Gene Cernan said during the end credits of the 2007 documentary In the Shadow of the Moon, "Truth needs no defense."
i personally have no respect for any flat earther. though i only really called them “stupid” or “braindead” 😂
That's because he's never debated a flattard yet...
That would change after that...
🤣🤣🤣
"the earth looks the same size as the moon at night" have you ever tried to take a photo of the moon? it looks miniscule
Exactly! I challenged a flatter to do just that and he refuse (go figure).
As a commercial photographer and ‘Blad user since the ‘70s I couldn’t have explained that better. Brilliant work!
Much appreciated 👍
Every conspirist on earth: "I don't understand anything you just said, therefore you are wrong and that proves the landings were faked."
Sadly, this is 100% accurate.
I'm so happy that someone who is very knowledgeable about photography is debunking this particular topic and explaining it in terms that damn near anyone can understand. Thank you!
Anyone can understand it, except a flat earther.
@@arlangaming3022 You beat me to it. Arlan. 😉 By ≈ 60+ mins.
@briankane6547 in all fairness, there isn't much that flat earthers understands. I have debated many of them, including the well-known ones.
@@NoLongerOnTheBall
Globe confirmed 💯🌎
@@NoLongerOnTheBall measurement works just fine along with maps. WGS 84 is a perfect example of this as those are real world measurements confirming curvature that have been applied to make accurate map projections of the globe and used to make GPS which is the most accurate form of navigation known to man and only works when applied to a globe. But hey prove me wrong provide a measurement that supports a flat earth along with a functioning fe map that uses that measurement. If you cannot do that then the earth is not flat, but it is a globe as all the globe earth measurements and maps work which is only possible if we live on a globe. If you do not respond to this providing those things then it will be viewed as you agreeing we live on a globe. Game. Set. Match.
It's funny how those conspiracy nuts always claim to have done their own research and thought for themselves and whatnot, but maths clearly tells us that they didn't. For me, being a hobby photographer who owns multiple cameras with different sensor sizes (or film formats) and has dealt with a variety of lenses with different focal lengths, making statements about photographs (aside from "looks nice and colorful") without taking these things into account is something totally absurd.
Exactly, these morons are literally too stupid to know how dumb they are. EVERY time they make some claim to prove the earth is flat or the lunar landing didn't happen, the only thing they end up proving is how ignorant they are about EVERY subject known to man.
screw flat earth i have my own conspiracy hypothesis based on bull shit that gose against evidence flat earthers don't actually exist and they are not real the government just uses them as a ploy to spy on bird populations and test safety of different brands of bleach if ingested
Just because you are doing your own research and think for yourself doesn't actually mean you are *good* at doing that. (Now, conspiracy nuts usually do neither of those things and are also not good at doing them)
Conspiracy nuts doing their own research actually means just looking up on the web and finding some confirmatory piece which is why an algorithm was developed to exploit that and used extensively by Trump et al to push their lies.
@@bertholdb9037 I'm a conspiracy theorist and don't want to be put together with those flat earthers and other idiots.
3:10 If you want to check this, just take a photo of the full moon and get super unimpressed by the small white blob.
I have also explained this numerous times but normally used a photo-viewer to count the number of pixels the Earth covers and compare that to the full frame and, knowing that is about 47 degrees we get the angular size of the Earth in the Lunar sky, around two degrees.
The late Apollo denier Pascal Xavier (aka Hunchbacked) decided not to look up the fov of the Biogon lens and decided to calculate it using the formula: fov = 2*atan(H/2F) where H is the size of the detector and F the focal length of the lens. This is fair enough except for H he used 70, the physical width of the film and this gave him an incorrect fov of 65 degrees instead of47, which he used in work to suggest the size of the Earth was wrong.
Now, he was supposed to be an engineer, the question is, did he deliberately calculate the wrong value because the correct value didn't fit his agenda, or was it an honest mistake? I know what I think.
A conspiracy theorist fudging numbers? .. surely not! ;-)
No, he would never fudge the numbers. No way … 🧐
I think I have the answer: #GottaLieToFlerf ©2023 MCToon
@@mojomusica 😁Yes, many true engineers have been sceptical of Mr Xavier's claimed qualifications. At least he wasn't a flerf, although Apollo denial isn't trailing that far behind.
A Moon landing denier fudging numbers and lying ? I'm truly Shocked😮 !!!
Nah... Not at all.
You effectively and definitively debunked a flat earth argument. Since there's no denying this, they'll just call you a liar. That's how it goes.
Nah they would just ignore it, at best they would claim he has no idea what he’s talking about.
They will come up with some strawmen as always. Or be too retarded to understand it, or both.
As always: #GottaLieToFlerf ©2023 MCToon
This seems like the least possible relevant argument.
*Zooms in "IT'S TOO BIG!"
*Zooms out "IT'S TOO SMALL!"
The tick marks on the cameras used on the lunar surface were exactly 10 mm apart. That gives them an angular separation of about 9 to 9.5 degrees. On the photo with the Earth above the flag I measured the distance between the ticks on the flag as 240 pixels, and the diameter of the Earth as 54 pixels. That gives the angular diameter of the Earth as about 2 degrees, which is just about what it should be.
It also adds kudos that who ever fake such photos, going to extreme lengths to get the perspective to match up every time, even under scrutiny 50 some odd years later even with digital overlays.
@@jhfl1881 Except the photo's weren't faked; there is plenty of proof that Apollo was entirely real.
Brillant, mate!
@@jhfl1881i couldn't tell your comment was sarcasm/satire bc a flat earther would unironically say that
It was to be ironic, because no matter what points we argue, and how sound the science, some will refuse to believe.
So we were in a space race with Russia, faked it and Russia didn’t call us out? But the acknowledge instead? How strange.
This is because *_all_* space agencies are subservient to NASA who is, in turn, subservient to the mysterious *_THEY._*
Been taking photos professionally and semi-professionally for over 60 years. Your explanation is spot on and easy to understand even for those without a background in practical photography. Great job.
One of the other issues that often leads to this sort of misunderstanding is also that most people actually believe the size of the moon in the sky is much larger than it actually is. This is a trick our brains play on us because most of the time when we look at the moon there is nothing nearby for reference to compare its size to, and it is the only thing of interest in our field of view, so our brain naturally sorta "zooms in" on it and we end up remembering it being bigger than what we actually saw.
This is why many people think pictures of the night sky with the moon in them have been altered, etc, because the moon looks so much smaller in pictures than we think it should be based on our own experiences, but the problem is that our memories are skewed, not the photographs.
If you hold your hand out as far as you can, the moon will be smaller than your pinky nail. But if you ask someone they will say it's about the size of a quarter.
It's actually the other way around! When you have a reference you can actually see how bid it is. That is why when the full moon is at the horizon and you have buildings and landscape nearby moon in the view, it will appear larger to you. It's a trick on the brain...
Don’t they realize that when you take a picture of the moon, it looks much smaller than what the eye sees? So yes, if you take the exact same camera with the exact same settings and take a picture of the moon from earth, then go on to take a picture of the earth from the surface of the moon, the earth would appear 3.5x larger.
They might not realize because they are convinced that happens only because they have small screens on their smartphones. ;)
They also have problems with pictures of the Earth from space. A few well known - space/science presenters and debunkers who take on hoaxers and Flerfers have challenged to assertion that Flerfers make that depending on which photo you look at, Nth America for example, fills up the entire globe in some and less in others. Simpy because they don't understand some basic concepts of distance to the Earth for one and how that alters what can be seen on any hemisphere.
That always annoyed me when I was a kid. I'd see a HUGE full moon on the horizon, it was so cool I had to take a photo of it, but when the film was developed and I got the pictures back, the moon would be just a tiny nondescript dot.
@@AbuMaia01. That was eons ago. ;)
@@AbuMaia01 And don't forget, what you got back was a small piece of paper with an image on it. This isn't very scientific, but go to the exact spot and hold that photo up to what is there and everything looks smaller, the moon, the trees, buildings, etc.
I too have many photos of tiny white dots in the sky from when I started in photography with no appreciation of how cameras worked.
Not knowing the effects of the relationship between focal length and sensor size is fair enough.
But then using it to claim that the moon landings were faked is ridiculous.
Agreed, not understanding the relationship = understandable
Trying to use it anyway to claim it's all a lie = Dunning Kruger
Dave, you've missed the biggest undebunkable proof that Apollo never happened: "Because Reasons." That's unshakable logic, right there, buddy. 😛 Love your content, love your dog. Woof!
Well, flerfs don't know anything, and refuse to learn how things go... nice debunking, as always
I've learned so much about photography and cameras watching your videos. I guess the big take-away when studying photos is, "What specific camera and lens was used?" Love your content, please keep up the great work.
@@NoLongerOnTheBall - Earth doesn't need to be curved. It already is. Plus plenty of photos where the only thing curved is Earth and not anything else in the photo. Kinda destroys the flerf agenda
@Brian Strutter
Please do not corrupt his whimsical flights of fancy and silliness with your hard facts and logic. It's not fair.
@@NoLongerOnTheBall
Globe confirmed 💯🌎
@@NoLongerOnTheBall said "einstein was unable to prove the earth was moving using visual tests?" - but we established that it is using other types of tests, right?
@@NoLongerOnTheBall Einstein was specifically referring to michelson-morley when he said that, but wouldn't you know it about 10 years after that Michelson-Gale happened and did exactly that measuring rotation. So where is your measurement to support a flat earth along with a functioning fe map based on that measurement? If you cannot provide those then the earth is not flat, but it is a globe as the globe earth maps and measurements all work which is only possible if we live on a globe. Game. Set. Match.
What moon landing deniers engage in is not skepticism. A skeptic questions and tests his or her own hypotheses, trying to disprove them, before drawing any conclusions. Conspiracy theorists start with a conclusion and then look for evidence to support it, ignoring or dismissing anything that might disprove their hypotheses.
True but when I've addressed them as deniers or conspiracy theoriests in the past that is all they focus on, as though they hear that as just switch off from what is being said.
This way some of them might actually take on board the actual argument
What you say is true, but calling the Moon landing conspiracy a "hypothesis" is giving it a lot more gravitas than the correct term of "fairy tale"...
Skepticism requires research, experimentation, falsification, and repeatability. Einstein was a skeptic and dveloped his theory of relativity to correctly explain what was being observed and measured. Moon landing conspiritards are NOT skeptics, all they are is "denialists" regardless of the facts.
I am trying to learn a little about photography and no one has ever explained focal length so simply. I finally get it. You never used this term, but it clicked in my brain, that's what's meant when someone says they're using a wide angle lens. I was making the whole thing way more complicated than it needed to be in my head. I learned something new. Thanks for that.
You going to love the 'rule of thirds''...
If you want to give your little grey cells a real workout, look at Tilt Shift Lens's, they will give you a real headache in learning about what and how they do.
@@ritagomes7838 I'll have to look that up. I haven't heard of it.
@@aidejones Haven't heard of this, either. I just have an old Pentax K1000, I think? I can't remember the exact model. I got it from my mom. She used to be a professional photographer. She had an expensive medium format camera she did portraits with. The Pentax was her cheap hobby camera and I ended up with it. I don't know anything about it except how to load the film and take a picture.
Here is practical exercise to help people understand the size of the earth and it's curvature.
(this is metric, because I'm an Aussie, mm = millimetre, km = kilometre)
1. Find a large open space, eg. a school yard
2. Mark out a 12.742 metre diameter circle (41.8 feet for the US peeps)
(maybe use a string 6.371 metres long and a peg in the middle to draw the circle line)
This circle is the earth at 1 mm = 1 km scale, 1:1,000,000 (1 to a million)
3. Now draw a 10mm (slightly less than 1/2 an inch) curve above the edge of that circle
This is how high passenger aircraft cruise (10,000 metres)
A 100mm curve above the base circle is the edge of space, i.e. the practical end of the atmosphere.
4. Lie down and sight along the edge of the circle, and see how slight the curve is in practice.
5. Inside of the edge of the large circle, draw a smaller curve 30mm (a bit more than an inch) smaller than the large circle.
You now have an idea of how thick the earth's crust is relative to the globe.
6. At this scale the sun is 150km away (93.2 miles)
7. The sun is about 1.4 km diameter at this scale
8. The moon is (on average) 382.0 metres away and is about 3.474 in diameter (at this scale)
Yes, the Earth is the wrong size. Do you know how long it takes me to walk down the street to the mailbox? Earth needs to be much smaller.
Maybe you just need to fling your walking appendages forward in more rapid rate?
One of my friends said “If they opened a door in a photo studio such that it opened to the outside, the photo studio is not separated from the rest of the universe. If that happened, then with a massive stretching of the truth, the moon landing photos were taken in a studio.” He was high. Still a smarter argument than anything flat earthers make.
Stoner logic may be way off but it can very enteraining.
The photos were all taken in a studio... on the Moon.
A the moon photos were taken in a little room: 'camera' means 'little room'.
Now lets work out what the difference is between field of view, and field of focus. - and how it caries with amount of light, and how the moon's surface is like being in a sunlit desert, and the surface of the Earth is, by comparison, not as brightly-lit.
@@stevetheduck1425 Jesse, what the f*ck are you talking about.
If you wear your shirt inside out, then everyone in the universe is wearing your shirt except you.
Flat Earthers will use the perspective argument when talking about the Horizon, but will completely toss it out the window when discussing photos of the Earth from space.
You mean cartoons and CGI?
@@Globeisahoaxx Calling photographs of the earth cartoons and CGI is hypocritical for you, disc worshipper. Every illustration of your idol is nothing but cartoons and CGI. It's not founded in reality.
Go research reality.
@@Globeisahoaxx Ah yes pre cgi images of Earth don't exist and I'm not in an idiotic and embarrassing echo chamber of debunked ideas and concepts. I'm definitely right.
@@JohnNotAMurderer what?
@@Globeisahoaxx I'm parodying flat earthers.
Interesting to read the comments here.
As a long time subscriber this is what I would call the third change in this channel.
The first era of this channel is what I would call "Bachelor McKeegan".
He took photos (!) and created videos for photographers, the videoquality was not great to be honest but the content and information made up big tim. Nobody could really argue with what Dave said so the negativity was focused on his untidied bed.
Dave started making his bed, the quality of videos got better. Bed was tidy and effort was put in to getting a nice frame in the video.
Still people had little to argue on, so people argued on how words was pronounced.
And the third chapter is recently when the average commenter here has been replaced by people who know how to use a camera in full manual to people that has no clue of cameras and the arguments are about flat earth and similar topic.
I enjoy the topic of flat earth and have a large interest of photography, so it suit me well.
Great work on the channel Dave! It has been a pleasant journey following your channel.
I appreciate you supporting me even through the untidy bed
Thank you for bringing sense into this world full of conspiracy lunatics.
They say pinheads are tiny, but when I held one up to my eye, it looked GIGANTIC! Therefore, pinheads are NOT tiny.
Don't do that. Flat eartherS might prick their eyes trying that experiment.
Really? The last time that I spoke to a pinhead (a flerf) they weren't that tiny. Don't think I could have picked them up!
flat earther: "DO THE REASERCH!!!"
also flat earther: has done no research
No, flerf would say: "it doesn't need any proof" and will change the topic by any means necessary.
Definition of research for a flat head: Watch a lot of FE videos. Believe anything it's said.
In their case, research = 'trust me bro'
Mildew and rust on ''moon'' equipment in video at 8:48 minute in link:
ruclips.net/video/9GcQJxZOdos/видео.html
@@user-oq7xc5qp3y Mildew and rust on ''moon'' equipment in video at 8:48 minute in link:
ruclips.net/video/9GcQJxZOdos/видео.html
But I'm SURE these flat earthers did ALL this research into the camera and the photographic principles before making the idiotic accusation. Surely, they wouldn't have made an argument out of ignorance.
Reminds me of something that happened in high school. In our literature book, there was a picture of a deer standing on a hill, with the full moon behind it. The moon appeared to be _enormous_, much bigger than the deer. This picture brought class to a halt for a little while as people asked if the moon could really be that big, or if the photo had been edited. The teacher, who was definitely not an astronomer, said that sometimes the moon really did appear that big.
But no, it was just a photo that had been taken with an extremely long focal length, and the deer was very far away.
Quite so. If you take refraction and the actual position of the Moon in relation to someone standing on Earth into account, the Moon on the horizon measures smaller than the Moon directly overhead.
The flat earther's claim simply demonstrates how little they know about very basic photography. By changing the focal length of the lens and the distance to the subject, you can make another object in the background seem whatever size in comparison to the subject, you want it to be.
Perhaps they should watch the famous dolly zoom scene in Jaws, which illustrates this effect quite well.
Nobody would be making these videos if you didn't. This is my fav channel debunking flat earthers. Hopefully, these will be convincing them that they're mistaken.
It's funny that flat Earthers didn't think to ask a photography expert about these things before criticizing them. Like, the whole "no stars in the background" on the lunar surface photos. A quick question to a photographer would have cleared that up. (Of course you could also ask, does it make sense that NASA "fakesters" FORGOT to paint stars on the wall, _IF_ stars were supposed to be visible?)
You say that but the "American Moon" documentary includes some professional photographers saying things that suggest the photos are fake - what is hard to spot is the way that their statements can be very easily taken out of context to mean something completely different
@@DaveMcKeegan Not to mention that the film maker showed them photos with altered contrast levels, and at least one of the so-called original photos is a well-known composite that had the sun digitally inserted. Didn't stop him from claiming they were all from NASA.
Of course. They don't want facts, they want the narrative. That's all.
NASA didn't just "forget" the stars in the background of the Moon landings, but they also forgot the stars and keep forgetting the stars in the background of the ISS during the day, but oddly keep remembering to put the correct stars in the correct spots at night!
@@chrisantoniou4366 Yep. It's also funny that they believe that NASA cut a SQUARE around the Earth before pasting it on the wall, instead of around the round perimeter. They believe this because they've taken JPEG images of that scene and processed them with some photo editing software - turn up the contrast to maximum etc - and they see a big square around the Earth. This shows that A) they have no idea how image compression works; B) they did not grab the full resolution RAW image without compression and C) really really think those NASA fakers are smart enough to fool the world but not smart enough to cut a circle around a circular object...
So perfectly explained how focal length and sensor size defines the field of view in an image. Something I didnt know myself before I even started photographing the nightsky my own.
Imagine being an adult with access to the internet, and having to be explained what zooming and perspective is
Thanks Dave. It is always good to hear a detailed and clear explanation from someone who is expert in their field.
To call these Flerfers “skeptics” is an oxymoron! Skepticism is a good attitude and produces better knowledge of the reality. Flerfers attitude is not skeptical is just dogmatic! That’s not skepticism it’s an argument from “incredulity”, obviously a logical fallacy.
True, but there are people around with enough brain cells to work out the Earth isn't flat, but aren't convinced that moon landings actually took place
Exactly!
Evidence, calculations, common sense and science, all pleaced in front of a flat earther to be dismissed with a "Naaa-ahhhh".
I love how easy this is for you... your systematic take down of FE is truly beautiful and very much appreciated. Thanks again
All of this goes to say: think about how big a full moon looks from earth. Make it a supermoon if you're greedy.
If you're standing on the moon, a full earth (make it a superearth if you're greedy) is 3.5 times bigger. Freaking enormous. I'm jealous for those astronauts. I'd love to be able to see a gigantic earth hovering over the horizon.
Came for the debunking, stayed for the doggo going, "Hey. Hey. You move hand. Move hand for pets, please."
May have been already been said. But I love this joke about this topic.
When approached by NASA and government officials to film a fake moon landing, a famous producer/ director accepted the job.
After researching the project, and estimating the costs to film it, the producer determined that it would be much affordable if he just filmed it on location.
What cost? It’s like a B movie production. Pennies
Don’t you see it’s a great money laundering operation? Taking billions of tax payers dollars and putting in private pockets
@@Globeisahoaxx We await your demonstration video replicating just one Moon landing on a budget of a tenner.
@@Globeisahoaxx Which of the thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers on the data and samples from the Apollo moon landings have you proven fake?
@@Katy_Jones is this a joke? The lander is sticks, foil and duct tape.
By the same token these people never question the huge size of the moon compared to distant objects on the horizon when shot with extreme telephoto lenses!
Flat earthers: I know everything there is to know
Real people: I'm learning new stuff all the time
This is one of the fundamental differences that separates the type of people you find in each group. One of my favorite teachers said "There's no shame in not knowing. The shame is in not learning."
It's just common sense that if you have a wider field of view, anything in the distance that was a certain size in a narrower field will be smaller in a wider view to accommodate the need to capture all of the scene. You don't even need maths to prove it.
Don't these loons think that NASA would know how the earth would look from the moon? Why would they make such a glaring mistake for people like them to pick up, they just don't think?
Another well researched, comprehensive explanation of the _facts!_ Well done.
(Looks at title) "No."
I had a similar thought. 😁
Betteridge's law of headlines strikes again
Focal length vs diameter of the sensor/film. That defines field of view. Field of view defines how big the moon is. Those reality deniers just don't know how to camera.
I owned and operated a camera retail and studio shop in the 80's. A perfect explanation, thank you. Flerfs argue about photo's and have no understanding of photography or how camera's actually work. I enjoyed and miss my 4x5 speed graphic and dark room the most.
😂😂😂
@@Tre-q9u Oh good to see you pop up here after you ran from me in the last video and comment threads. Have you found that measurement to support a fe yet along with a functioning fe map based on that measurement? If not then the earth is not flat, but it is a globe as all the globe earth measurements and maps work which is only possible if we live on a globe. Game. Set. Match. if you agree that the earth is a globe then don't respond with that measurement and map.
@@Requiem4aDr3Am I think he ran off again
@@Requiem4aDr3Am I told u and I also said show me go live and prove it its simple
@@Tre-q9u Thanks for confirming the earth is not flat, but that it is a globe as you could not provide a single measurement or functioning map to support you while having no answers for the fact the globe earth maps and measurements all work. I don't have to go live to prove these things I already gave you the source material with WGS 84. Thanks.
Come for the debunking, stay to watch the doggo demand more scritches.
I just love the doggo demanding attention. Adorable.
Not the dog asking to continue to pet it everytime he stops petting😭🥺
Don't tkey keep repeating it's all a matter of perspective? Now that it is, they fail.
Great breakdown of focal lengths and crop factors. Providing the actual overlays went above and beyond in making the point! Very well presented!
I love the "All of this is relevant to the moon, i promise!"
I am totally waiting for a bait and switch video in the near future where Dave claims to talk about some Flerfer Bullshit, and then just talks about cameras for half an hour. Because he clearly loves talking about photography. Which is awesome!
First. Checkmate, Flerfers!!!
🥇 congratulations
I'd probably first ask the itinerant Flerf what the size *should* be and (here's the cruel part) get them to show their working and the associated assumptions. 😁
Paused the vid on purpose right before you started explaining so that I could come up with a plausable explanation.
After like 5 minutes of thinking I conceded my loss and guessed "some camera trickery" and was pleasantly surprised that your explanation made perfect sense and even made me learn something I didn't know about as a lay person.
Flat earthers often say that you "are an idiot and know nothing about this" but in actuality, your experience as a professional photographer is exactly what make you capable of proving them wrong and teaching people like me the realily that flat earthers just can't explain
Kubrick couldn't get the lighting right in the studio so they had to go shoot on location...
There are some beautiful pictures of the moon behind people where the moon seems to be the size of a 10-floor building. And others where the moon is a tiny speck above someone's head. Anyone who has seen those and has half a brain cell should instantly know that the size of the moon (or the Earth) in a photo is meaningless on its own.
An excellent debunk that really shows you know what you're talking about.
Mildew and rust on ''moon'' equipment in video at 8:48 minute in link:
ruclips.net/video/9GcQJxZOdos/видео.html
@@ericephemetherson3964 And you have lab tests to confirm that?
@@synthetic240 Do you have lab tests to confirm that Helium 3 was brought from the Moon?
Do you have any lab tests to confirm they didn't? Simply believing there's a conspiracy isn't enough. You're the one trying to convince people of something; the burden of proof is on your shoulders.
Flat-Earthers can easily dismiss all of your arguments with: "No, the Earth should not be of that size. Because of.... uhmm,..perspective. And buoyancy also. And refraction.Thats it."
I like the effort you put in your videos to explain relatively complicated subjects, in a way that most people without any special knowledge would understand. You have one of my favourite photography channels, which I’ve been watching for years now. Keep up the wood work!
At 0:10 Another beautiful study case of a Dunning Kruger effected Flerfer assuming that, those NASA cheaters, had Photoshop 18 years before Adobe released it, but were so stupid to “forget” about the angular size of Earth and bungled up the picture! 🤌🏻🙄🤦♂️🤷🏻♂️
"But what about outgasing and thermal expansion" 😂
I'm still trying to get over the headache caused by listening to all that :D
@@DaveMcKeegan flatzoid has always been something 😅 he hates it when people bring up him deleting 11-13 frames from a video a few years back.
lol gah flatzoid and his bag of woo. Still getting a kick out of his comments on cold fusion in the vacuum of space while at the same time trying to use 2nd law of thermodynamics to claim space isn't real.
@@DaveMcKeegan I suppose you will have to present Flatzoid with the series of photos you took while training to be a photographer, or else you are not a photographer.
@@clivedavis6859 I for one never eat in a restaurant until I've seen all the chefs screw ups from when they first started
I figured it had to do with the camera lens magnification when people started claiming that the Earth and the Moon sizes should be different.
As a photographer, I can say that the lens on a camera can distort an image. It can make things look bigger or smaller than they would look through your regular eyes. A wide angle lens will make things further away look smaller than they look through your eyes and things close look bigger..
I have 3 astro cameras, and they all have completely different sized chips. The difference in magnification and field of views is huge. I have the same thing with my 2 most used scopes. 1 short and 1 long focal length. All sky lenses too. I got all the bases covered. :)
Size of objects in the background all depend on the focal length of the lens. Also, whether or not stars are visible, always depends on the exposure level and shutter speed. People always sight that there are no stars in the earth and moon pictures. Let me put it like this. Can you take pictures of stars during the daytime on Earth? No! Well, some people say there are filters you can buy now days that block the bright sun and are able to take daytime astrophotography. However, it's not well known except by astrophotographers. The moons surface is light gray and it has no atmosphere so it is literally a mirror reflecting a lot of sunlight. You might think that since the moon has no atmosphere that it would be easier to see stars in the pictures. Not so. In order to see the stars in a picture taken on the daylight side of the moon, you would need to stop the aperture down to a small f stop,(which would let less light in because the lower the f stop the smaller the "hole" letting the light in to the camera sensor or film in the case of Apollo astronauts, and you would have to increase the shutter speed. (Exposure length.) You would just end up with a blown out mess because the surface of the moon is so bright and stars are so faint. That is to say, the Moon and Lunar Lander, or whatever is in the foreground, would be so bright it would glare in front of the black sky and probably wash most of the stars out. Although I believe it is possible to do this, the photographs would not have been very useful to scientists. When it costs more per pound than gold is worth to send astronauts and equipment to the Moon, you don't want to waste precious film on shitty photographs. If that means you can't see any stars, so be it. There may exist some night side moon photographs. If so there should be plenty of stars visible. Just look at some night side Earth photos or videos taken from the ISS. People who come up with these conspiracies just don't understand how cameras work. They are much more sensitive than our eyes but they work the same way. The aperture gets smaller in bright light, just like our pupils, provided the camera is set to auto exposure and auto shutter speed. With the camera in manual mode you would have to manually adjust these settings or the photos are crap. Again, you try taken a picture of stars during the daytime here on Earth.
Agreed and using shorter focal lengths helped with focusing which would have been more of an issue with a normal field of view lens on a medium format camera like the Hasselblad. All in all they did very well to get the photos they did with the equipment available given the situation.
Love your channel. Such a beautiful dog you have! It is a truly great thing to hear things explained to all in a simplistic and understanding manner. Thank you for what You do. You are needed and important.
I am a photographer and I know a lot about focal lengths, fields and apparent distortions.. but the way you found the reference of the Apollo camera and made a recent comparison with a photo of the moon... is on another level! bravo
the anecdote is that just two days ago I argued with a conspirator on the same subject, and I replied that the ancient Greeks simply measured the size of the moon by watching it come out of the shadows after 3 hours, i.e. the moon is three times smaller than the earth (neglecting the fact that the earth's shadow is not cylindrical as Aristarchus thinks)
the tricks of numbers and complex techniques would never have convinced him, too stupid for that
What is the size of the straw being grasped at by the deniers here? 😂
Keep coping
what is the size of your shriveled brain?
He literally destroyed your argument in one video via a basic knowledge of how photography works.
@@astroevada Who's argument? You can make a background object fill the frame by zooming in. Arguing that the Earth is the wrong size is grasping at straws.
@@robert99633 I misread your comment as if though you were a denier
Excellent explanation Dave. I always knew the size looked 'visually smaller' because it was a result of the camera taking a photograph but I truly didn't know why; and you fixed that for me now. 👍👍
As a photographer, I love hearing flat earthers debunked from a photography perspective!
That was done amazingly well. The small things you probably had to do to make it easy for the viewers to understand - we will never know, but I appreciate the end result.
Thanks Dave.
This was one of the best focal length explanations I've heard. Great job as always sir.
I love when your dog looks up at you with such love in his/her eyes ❤
Yet another example of what I love about your videos Dave, you show the difference between a solid knowledge and "knowing stuff"
cheers mate
I've never understood moon landing deniers. 🤦🏻♂️🙇🏻♂️
Taking this a little further, if we know the diameter of earth and its distance, and the diameter of the astronaut's helmet, would could (to some degree of accuracy) figure out how far from the camera the astronaut is in this photo. :)
As an amateur photographer I learned how much this can affect my shots first hand but I never bothered to look into the actual reasons behind it. Thanks!
Most people don't realize how tiny the moon looks in regular (non-zoom/non-telescopic) pictures. Many people expect the moon to appear in pictures much like it seems to appear in real life.
It's ironic that flerfs and other conspiracy nutters love their Nikon cameras but have absolutely no clue how cameras work.
Flatty can't even focus, let alone be aware of the finer points of photography such as focal lengths.
Yep. They can't focus and claim they can "bring back" objects that have already disappeared over the horizon using a zoom. Ask them to prove it and they never, ever, ever, do...
With basic skills about cameras, this is very easy.
Apart from the excellent information, I love the dog’s interaction 🐶
Some flerfs claim Earth should be half of the sky on the Moon for some reason...
I watch this channel because:
It's informative ✅
It's concise ✅
It dunks on FE ✅
Doggy ✅
I think you've got the list order backwards 😜
@@DaveMcKeeganlol, I was just going to type that! As a lifelong photographer and instructor, I watch your videos because I’m always looking for ways to present this kind of information to laypeople so that they truly understand it, and I really like your style, kudos Mr. McKeegan, well done! But…
I’m s sucker for doggos.
I love your videos but my one tiny little nitpick, and something I hope you will emphasize more in future videos, is the true scale of the distance between the earth and the moon. Most laypeople (and of course this extends to flat earthers) think the moon is much much closer to the earth than it really is, and even though you give the true numbers, showing a diagram of the earth and the moon with misleading distances just winds up reinforcing this false belief. And I hope you might consider adding or saying "(not to scale)" when you do use such a diagram
Totally agree, I think it's a minor detail for the audience of this channel, but the mainstream space news outfits need to mention this or if they are showing "artist" impressions, plus source material, otherwise their content is open to be misused.
Agree. That and using metric units helps too.
I’ve been subscribed a while, but just now thought of looking at your playlists. And lo, what did I find? A treasury of photography tutorials!
My wife inherited 2 camera's, with a few lenses. Now I can tell the difference between them. I knew about 50 mm, but now I also understand tele- en wide angle. Thanks!
This isn’t going to convince any flat earthers or moon landing deniers because they all stop watching about 40 seconds in.
40 seconds?!! Many of the ones I talk to in the comments haven't even watched the video AT ALL before spouting off!
They're easy to spot, though, since they inevitably raise some some sort of presumed "gotcha" issue that the video has already explained - in great detail - where they're going wrong.
If Dave can reach people who haven’t completely fallen down the rabbit hole, his message is beneficial. And there are some people who climb out. Hopefully Dave can contribute to that worthwhile effort too.
Were you not listening to Flatzoid yesterday? He said bringing a camera into space is impossible because the microsecond you bring the camera into the vacuum it would spontaneously boil and the gasses would all fill the empty space, or some other stupid nonsensical reason.
Love your content I've been learning a lot.
Yes Flatzoid said a lot of things 🤣
Anything failzoid says is meaningless gibberish, He is an oxygen thief.
I'm a beginner/casual photographer, and this explanation is brilliant. I knew that different lenses can create those different FOVs but not the theory behind it.
There's so much of this camera stuff that goes right over my head (the most complicated cameras I ever had were 35mm pick-a-light/dark point and shoot varieties), but I do love the debunking style!
❤❤
Ironically, the relative apparent size of foreground and background objects in a photo is due to camera perspective.
Not camera perspective, just perspective.
Hold your hand up near your eye and look at the moon and it appears much larger. It isn't of course...