I think Adrian really deserves a lot of credit here. He took time out of his day to help Dave, a complete stranger, to understand more about his work, and enabled us to geek out over both his fantastic photographs, and the technological marvel that was Concorde.
He was The photographer for Concorde - this has to be one of the highlights of his career. I'm sure he didn't mind sharing the information. Also, Dave is a fellow photographer - even more reason to share his experiences.
As a photographer myself and well acknowledging optics and optic aberrations, I can with great confidence say that the photograph was shot through a thick window that had the potential to distort the image, not to mention that many lenses back then were not really best corrected for geometric distortions. There are fish eye lenses that do not use a 180 degree field of view but rather 120 or even less! That is to minimize the size ad keep sharpness strong, a practice that was revived in recent years for digital cameras that have the ability to fully correct geometric distortions. So there is no way the curve of the Earth could have bee so drastic as in this image at that altitude and that field of view without having some barrel distortion at play that is even on the plane itself and it fools us. We need to account for all the facts, otherwise these idiots of flat earthers would come at us! In order to see the curvature at that still low altitude, you need a much wider field of view and a really well corrected lens!
Dave: Makes a very informative video correcting a misconception LEO: Makes a condescending and toxic response Dave: Corrects mistakes he made and proves he is even MORE right in the process
This also proves that more good research yields better, and thus more accurate, information rather than the hapless and hopeless L.E.O could ever muster. As per usual the no drama presentation by Dave delivers another death blow to a Flerfer of the obnoxious variety, which of course is pretty much the only variety they come in.
@@DanielKay06 These FLERFs will never get it. Flat earth has been scientifically disproven using real science, which the opposition doesn’t know how to use, nor do they understand it.
As a veteran, I can also tell you that the supposed performance of military hardware released to the public is often reduced so as not to inform potential adversaries of their true capabilities. So a stock Typhoon might well be able to reach 70,000 feet, especially if it's not carrying any weapons or extra fuel which add weight.
I was thinking along the same lines, that the published operational maximum is where it is rated to perform all its necessary functions not the actual technical limit. I forget the term for it but there is also a difference between the limit of what an airframe can endure once vs what it can endure repeatedly.
Exactly this. I’ve been an airplane/fighter jet nut for years. We as the public have no idea of the real capabilities of any jet technology. For example the SR71 is the fastest airplane to fly but iirc there was one or two of the blackbirds that their pilots have said flew faster than any of the others. They trimmed up sweetly and just wanted to fly faster. The confirmed top speed has reportedly been said to be less than actually achieved
Also hardly anyone knows what the term "service ceiling" actually means. It's typically defined as the altitude at which the aircraft is still capable of climbing at 500 ft/min at a constant airspeed. So by the very definition of "service ceiling" it is possible to fly higher than it. And if you allow a non-constant airspeed (trading speed for altitude), then you can fly much higher, if only for a short time (on a parabolic trajectory).
👍 I have seen many vids with retired military pilots of all types, and they routinely describe that published spec. almost always was below real world performance.
Love that when you're wrong and release a correction, it just leads to more evidence that the main point of your argument still stands. Too bad for LEO he has never bothered doing anything that well or he would not be so confidently wrong.
When he said that someone was selling a canopy, I was worried for a moment that the next thing Dave said was "So I bought the canopy and made some tests". I wouldn't be surprised if he went that deep :P
Science is all about being wrong and understanding why, and re-researching, and learning. Flerfing is all about being right. Dave made a minor mistake, and in correcting it has himself a lovely looking book of photos, has learned something about British military aircraft, and made a new and interesting acquaintance. LEO has learned nothing and just made himself look a right cock, again.
Talk about a master class in actually doing research. Far better than the fools who just make up what ever is needed to fit their argument. Keep up the good work!
In any case, service ceiling is not the absolute maximum ceiling. This doesn't have a direct bearing on the photo but does serve to highlight Level Earth Observer seeking data that supports a position rather than constructing a position from the data.
That's what I was thinking throughout too. An aircraft in a different configuration could fly higher than that (ie, not laden down with munitions), which is partially what the Fighter variant is doing to gain that extra ceiling (light AA missiles vs gound munitions and fuel tanks)
@@MrVelociraptor75 Service height has a very easy definition. It is the maximum height at which a plane could still climb at 500ft per minute for jet aircraft. So given that the mobility of a plane would be limited if it can't reliably move higher at that point it is reasonable to limit it's service to below that. However outside of combat there is no reason for such a plane to not fly higher. Given that the definition literally states that the plane can still climb at 500ft per minute at that height it can obviously still climb. And obviously making the plane lighter improving the engines or even changes to friction and air resistance could change that value.
@@rudolfquerstein6710 also, I might add, this is the "public" service ceiling of a military aircraft. It's like the one time one should justifiably be a little bit skeptic of the numbers they work with, unless they have access to a war thunder player.
@@rudolfquerstein6710There’s also the annoying little fact that most militaries aren’t completely honest with the public (and therefore potential enemies) about exactly what their capabilities are. Wouldn’t surprise me one bit if the true service ceiling of the Tornado is several thousand feet higher than published.
This is a useful demonstration of the difference between 'doing your research' and *actually* doing some research. I do wonder if LEO, when checking the service ceiling of the Tornado, just handwaved away the other values given or simply stopped once he saw the 50K because he has his 'gotcha!' and that's all his 'research' is designed to achieve.
Well his argument that the MIR deorbit was really a Mig was that the plane he wanted to say it was had one big missile and four small ones so the same, implying what we see is just the missile from the plane while the plane is never visible. Did they borrow Wonder Woman's?
It's really amusing to me how this entire discussion originated from: "If it's round there'd be a visible curve!" "Here's a visible curve." "That photo can't be legitimate because there's a visible curve!" They don't actually want evidence. They just want confirmation of what they (claim to) believe.
Based on their backpedalling over the "Final Experiment" in Antarctica BEFORE it happened, I have serious doubts as to whether they actually believe their own talking points.
@@irwinshung809 There's no way someone with an actual channel dedicated to "proving" flat earth can actually believe it. Time and time again videos like Dave's and other's show that the observations or experiments they do are intentionally misleading, or leave out important parameters to make it seem like they are making a point. A very basic example being some guy using an infrared thermometer to take the temperature of the sun (from here - on Earth). It's not possible to be smart enough to run a youtube channel but dumb enough to think those thermometers work over even a mile, much less 93 million (or 10,000 or whatever their dome claims are)
@@irwinshung809of course not. Not the ones with the flat earth channels milking the ad revenue and patreon or other forms of crowdfunding or sponsoring. People in their audience, certainly, but not the grifters with the yt channels.
I have a number of holiday snaps with a clear horizon where the sea meets the sky and they all show the same degree of curve. You don't need to go up in an aircraft to see it, just compress the photo width and it is clear that it is curved no matter if it is above, at or below the centre of the picture and with different cameras. I have even done it with a screen shot from someone else's RUclips video off the East Anglia coast.
@@EvenTheDogAgrees Are there any companies actually willing to give a flerfer a sponsorship deal? It'd be hilarious if they were offered one by a company that makes globes.
I flew on the BA Concorde twice, we flew at 57k feet at Mach 2.2, which I remember having the captain sign in my Concorde brochure material in my seat . The curvature, and darkness of the sky, was visually apparent out the window with my own eyes.
@@UraFlight I disagree with this stance. While it's true that most will be impenetrable to evidence and stick to their ideas no matter what, some will not, and even that small percentage of people is worth the effort.
The outrageous number of L's that LEO has suffered in his flerf career tells us he has a superhuman resistance to shame and embarrassment. The guy just can't stop being wrong! It's absolutely amasing. Another brilliant video, Dave.
Based on the numbers, I have to say flerfs seem to be driven by the need to fell shame. They certainly refuse to believe much of anything that has not been soundly ridiculed by most of humanity.
As someone who was raised in a cult, I get why it's so hard to let go of something you believe in strongly. Still, it frustrates me to see flat earthers deny evidence so strongly just because it reminds me of how much my parents refused to listen to me when I tried explaining why I was leaving the cult and trying to save THEM from wasting the rest of their lives. While it can be fun to point and laugh, true believers of the flat earth should be pitied. It's a very sad thing to believe so strongly in something that's so obviously not true to the point it makes you a social pariah.
This is why I love Dave's videos so much. He doesn't get involved in the name calling or value judgements that other people do. He just presents the evidence and lets that speak for itself.
@@PeterMoore66 That's also why I like Dave's videos more than other Flat Earth debunkers! Plus, he's taught me a ton of stuff about cameras that I never knew.
While I understand your viewpoint, and can respect it, these are stupid people who are willingly indoctrinated. I have no sympathy for stupidity of that degree, and they can go fuck themselves.
@@PeterMoore66 There are definitely times to call out someone's values, like when you KNOW they're lying and are a grifter making money off people that believe in this stuff. But yeah, definitely better to keep it civil, because when you make things personal and start getting into jabs, it gives your argument less power. When you speak the evidence and STICK to the evidence, all they can do is try to fight that and that's a damn difficult fight.
When you mentioned that someone is selling a Tornado canopy, for a second i thought the next sentence would be: "I bought it" or you contacted the seller to make a visit, to take your own pictures out from under the canopy.
@@martinconnelly1473 Plus it looks like for the person in the rear seat especially, there is little if any curvature of the canopy from front to back. It appears to me more or less like a section of a cylinder. For an observer looking out to the side, it would be curving over their head but not much if at all when looking side to side. Not even remotely like the bubble canopy of something like a P51 Mustang for example. And I strongly suspect even that old warbird would not provide more than a fraction of the distortion claimed by the flerfers in this argument.
Googling it I not only found the same pic as Dave used but another one where it is sitting on some brick paving, with the bricks viewed through it just as clear and undistorted to the naked eye as the ones surrounding it.
Wow I've never heard someone _actually_ pull the "hmm yes how curious" voice to try to seem smart until that flerf guy being wrong. And those comments saying Dave has "confirmation bias" while they themselves were so deep in confirmation bias that they 1. completely ignored how the Concorde had no curvature which was the entire point of the last video and 2. completely failed to wonder why the Brit's Royal Air Force would install beer goggles on a fighter jet. There is no reasoning with people like this, I think they just love feeling superior for being contrarian which is what they believe being "smart" is.
2. Canopy/windshield curvature would only be (semi) important to the (flying) pilot. Irrespective, pilots can learn to compensate for the curvature of windshields and helmet visors during critical phases of flight. The Concorde photo was most definitely taken from the second (presumably non-flying) seat which would arguably distort less than the pilot's multi-faceted windscreens. There is distortion shown shown in this Tornado 2nd seat video, but only when not viewing at 90 degrees to the canopy. ruclips.net/video/JJOuIpb2rZ8/видео.html
@@ImperrfectStranger absolutely agree. Canopies are pretty good but not perfect: distortion will depend on what area is being looked through and, I think, also at the angle of incidence. Also love the rock-solid belief of the guy who made the comment in 50k feet being the 'surface(!) ceiling', when altitudes are pressure readings, not absolute, and published service ceilings of military aircraft might well be different to what the aircraft is actually capable of...
10:27 - just before Dave made that point, the thought "Would a fighter jet have windows that distort the vision? They probably use mostly instruments, but there must be cases where eyeballing is necessary. Surely, a distorting window will be a disadvantage." crossed my mind.
No, the canopies are designed to provide the greatest visual field of view with the least distortion. The mark one eyeball is still the instrument of choice for close in engagements.
@@PeerAdder The ability to see what might be heading your way is useful for things that instruments can't detect accurately. An IR homing missile for example. The canopy on a Tornado F2 is pretty flat along it's length, so that in itself keeps distortion low.
I came here straight after seeing part of “Behind Enemy Lines” when Owen gets shot down which was a fluff piece for the USAF. They are looking for incoming missiles as the tech wasn’t that great even in the late 1990s, early 2000s. This is a plane from a flight 15 years earlier using a design from the late 1960s prior to even remotely good electronic detection and visuals were more important than now.
Ah, LEO. Mr "earth isn't a globe but I've no idea what it is, but it isn't a globe"... The "demonstrable realist"... The only thing that is demonstrable is LEO's incredulity.
Flat Earthers really need to stop pointing out slight errors in your videos, just gives you a chance to disprove them harder. Excellent video, superb research
The ADV was designed to essentially loiter above the North Sea, to intercept Soviet bombers, in a heavy electronic warfare environment in all weathers. That’s why they never replaced the F-4’s in Germany, MiG-29 country, as it wasn’t a dogfighter. I worked for BA 1983-2020, in BA Concorde Engineering 1997-2003. The in house BA News put this photo on the cover, as part of an extensive feature on those new cabins and the return to service of G-BOAG, the aircraft in the picture. One of the Engineers in Concorde Maintenance was on G-BOAG for this flight, it was at Mach 2, 50,000ft. Though even the unarmed, stripped down Tornado F2 struggled to keep up! The last of my 7 flights on Concorde, was G-BOAE’s to Barbados in November 2003, the page you showed mentioning it and the altitude, certainly showed how it was the most well defined curvature of the Earth I saw, though you could also at 55-58,000 feet North Atlantic runs. But this flight not only had the extra altitude but clear conditions, like Adrian’s photo.
@grahambuckerfield4640 Thank you. But do you make such comments on FLERF's channels? I would love to see a thread with you debunking every claim that they have.
Service Ceiling is not the maximum altitude a plane can fly. LEO was wrong to state that. Service Ceiling is the altitude at which rate of climb reduces to 100 feet per minute. The plane can physically fly higher. Absolute Ceiling is always higher than Service Ceiling . As you pointed out though, that is irrelevant as the Tornado variant used could fly higher than the Concorde. LEO still doesn’t understand the horizon curve at these altitudes is not the 1 degree per 60 Nautical Miles curve of the Earth. It is the curve of the small circle defined by distance to horizon viewed at shallow angle. They often get that wrong.
That's very cool that the original photographer Adrian got back to you and shared the added info. Lots of cool stuff learned and seen here. And thanks for sharing that beautiful last photo. Concorde almost looks like a spaceship there!
It deserves recognition how much work you put into your videos to create perfectly prepared facts with your knowledge and that you also meticulously prepare any corrections to what you have previously said. Hats off to you! That's why I enjoy watching your videos.
One comment on the "service ceiling": it is not the *absolute* ceiling. Means: an aircraft with a service ceiling of 50,000 ft can still fly at higher altitudes.
Question would be: would the pilot be allowed to exceed the service ceiling during a photo shoot? During a lead laden enemy shoot, sure! But a photo shoot?
@@KonradTheWizzard The service ceiling, and most of a plane's stats is often low-balled by militaries to hide its actual capabilities to enemies. Easiest example are reports of SR-71 pilots going faster than what everyone says it's top speed is. Also, you can go a lot higher when not carrying external weapons. A photoshoot with clean wings and nothing to need serious maneuvering is the best time to go up high.
@@Appletank8 "The service ceiling, and most of a plane's stats is often low-balled by militaries to hide its actual capabilities to enemies. Easiest example are reports of SR-71 pilots going faster than what everyone says it's top speed is. " I second this. Another example is the Su-25. It is known to many people for its alleged role in the downing of MH-17. Back then, in 2014, Sukhoi's website showed a service ceiling of 7,500 m for this type. However, there were videos of this type available showing it flying at higher altitudes.
@@johncatty6560 No one in their right mind thinks an su-25 shot down an airliner. I'm not sure where you got that particular bit of utterly false info, but the downing of MH-17 had nothing to do with Su-25 (a ground strike aircraft, never used for air to air missions). It was shot down by a Buk 9M38 surface-to-air missile. This is public knowledge.
@@memkiii "No one in their right mind thinks an su-25 shot down an airliner." True that. English is not my mother tongue. But I thought that putting "alleged role" in the sentence would make it clear that I do not believe in this story. "I'm not sure where you got that particular bit of utterly false info, but the downing of MH-17 had nothing to do with Su-25 (a ground strike aircraft, never used for air to air missions)." The Russians brought up this easy-to-debunk fairy tale shortly after the event. Once they delivered the raw data of their radar, they stopped talking about this nonsense. Because the data did not show any Su-25 near MH17. "It was shot down by a Buk 9M38 surface-to-air missile. This is public knowledge." Yup.
@@leftpastsaturn67 Oh I'm sorry. Are you saying Dave didn't admit LEO was correct? If so what's the point of entitling a video "I WAS MISTAKEN ABOUT THIS CONCORD PHOTO" I can't wait for this
@@AndySmith4501 Go ahead and provide a quote from the video, or if that's too complicated, add a timestamp. Squirm away larper. And thanks for proving my point about you once again.
@@AndySmith4501 he was right that the photo had been cropped...but it wasn't cropped in any meaningful way...and his wikipedia skills failed him as he failed to find the different variants of the tornado...and curved windows do not distort stuff...it is the fucking military, who would distort the pilot's vision like that
Dave, you are the only true "debunker" I've seen on RUclips. Everyone else just calls flearths crazy without demonstrating HOW they're crazy. I'm so glad you're going down to the South Pole to represent science.
Ever tried Greater Sapien, Critical Think or Bob The Science Guy? There are also old legends like Wolfie6020 and Jesse Kozlowski, a professional pilor and professional surveyor who demonstrate in great detail why FE claims are wrong. And let's not forget Jos Leys with his short, clear videos. There are also a host of very small super-nerdy channels like Bert Rickles and Tommy Grønvold.
I don't agree. Prof Dave, MC Toon, SciManDan, Sir Sic, even FTFE when he isn't incandescent with rage, among many others, all provide the counter arguments, they just can't resist mocking flerfs mercilessly to boot, and so they should. Search for Cool Hard Logic's total demolitions of every flerf claim if you want to see how such wilful ignorance and grifting should really be dismissed. IMO there's no need to be polite with people who are *_wilfully_* ignorant, who mindlessly dismiss without justification all counter evidence (even their own) as wrong or fake, and who routinely call all scientists and engineers liars while simultaneously using the products of the science they deny to promulgate their delusions.
That's not completey true, but it does annoy me sometimes dat the flerfs are not properly debunked. It's kind of a "Trust me bro!"-statement. It's the same tactic Flatties use.
@transient_ Yeah, but when someone that trusts reality does it, you can trust them. When someone believes in the space pizza, you simply cannot "trust me, bro."
Professor Dave also has some good flat earth stuff, though he tends to be a lot less respectful if that is enough to turn you away. A lot of his debunkings are centered around creationists though.
In debate this is a derivative of the "I won't play this video, cuz of copyright or whatnot" argument, a strong defense when the video in question is devestating to your case.
@@protonjinx Or something like "just think about it, it's obvious dumbass". I can just say the same thing I thought when my math prof said this (w/o the dumbass of cause): Is it though?
To be fair, I pointed out the same issue with the altitude claim. Getting a Tornado to cruise at 60k ft plus isn’t really going to happen, at least with a normal one. I don’t know if they have recon versions capable of flying higher.
I can see the curvature of the earth taking off from a runway in front of an expanse of water. It’s fun watching boats and islands “appear” as you gain altitude.
Before c0vid I would have agreed with you. But now in 2024… I would no longer be surprised if flat earthers were to be proven right anyday now… I’ll stick to the roundy thing for now… And the theory for its birth being… “at first there was nothing, then it exploded…”
It is also worth noting that "service ceiling" is not the same things as "absolute ceiling" in aviation. The FAA defines service ceiling as “the maximum density altitude where the best rate of climb airspeed will produce a climb of 100 feet per minute at maximum weight while in a clean configuration with maximum continuous power.” Absolute ceiling, on the other hand, is the altitude at which an aircraft can no longer climb at all, only maintain level flight. That means that an aircraft with a service ceiling of 50,000ft can potentially fly higher, but at reduced rate of climb, especially if it is not flying at its maximum weight.
Actually that is for a prop-driven aircraft. For a jet it is 500 fpm (I learnt recently that EASA and CAA don't specify. It is just a certain, chosen rate of climb).
Brother, would you please make a video about your preparations for the trip to Antarctica? Like camera decisions, clothes, etc. But also talking about your emotions of the journey. You are very fact based in your videos making them awesome, but it would be cool to hear about the "Emotional" side of it. Do you think about it daily? Have you had any dreams of it or being there? Are you super excited? A bit "Scared" well not scared as much as, you are going to one of the most dangerous places to be on the Earth. It's a once in a lifetime trip, I am just curious about how that feels. To know you are going. It must be a bit overwhelming. Not just for you, but all attending. One of the few times the word "Epic" can be used in it's correct sense of the word. This is a true Epic adventure!
As an aviation enthusiast, this was absolutely brilliant! Thanks Dave for the detailed research and invaluable information. Wishing you even more success with your already successful channel.
Love the fact Dave owns up when he's made even a slight mistake, and then goes and finds further evidence to explain and support the conclusions. Flerf's and any conspiracy theories would never do anything like that - it would be excuse, excuse, denial, word salad, excuse, denial, more word salad etc. This is one of the things that makes Dave a superior human being!
@@simond.455 Yeah, but how many people can actually claim to own a canopy from a fighter jet? That'd make an awesome decoration if you had the room to display it.
@@DaveMcKeegan why are you as dishonest as a christian and avoid the fact their beliefs are far worse than getting a shape wrong! They claim theres a magical cloud pixie (clouds is where heaven is) because a book that says the 6000yo _____ earth has a dome with water above it etc!
Dave, please ignore the people who question your authenticity or trustworthiness. We know that you are someone who does their absolute best to get the facts right, and we all make minor mistakes here and there. No one is perfect. Cheers!
It's tiring that somebody considers looking up something in Wikipedia as 'doing research', and then has the audacity to make a reaction video from it. Great video! I've always loved Concorde. In my opinion, the most beautiful aircraft ever built.
Dave, you'd make an excellent teacher. You're explanations are clear and often supply two or more options to interpret the main point. ALl very good. Thank you for sharing and keep it up.
Dave didn't really make a mistake, he just didn't have all the information--which is different from being wrong. I do need to do some research at which point in the flight where Concorde flies supersonic. One of the unique features of Concorde that most fighter aircraft don't have is the ability to supercruise and maintain supersonic. I do not think it needs to be at 50 to 60,000 feet to do so, so it is possible that Concorde may had been below 50,000 feet for the photo to be taken. It would be great if the Tornado pilot is still around so we could just ask him what he flew at. As for canopies, it is actually designed to have as little distortion as possible. This also prevents pilots becoming dizzy from the optical effects, and one of the reasons Formula One adopted the Halo cockpit protection rather than a screen canopy like Ferrari trialed in 2016 or 2017. IndyCar did adopt the Aeroscreen and it is made by PPG who does develop jet fighter canopies, and the drivers reported minimal distortion and no disorientation despite the curve of the canopy being quite drastic. Flerfs just don't understand optics.
Yes, I have just started using glasses for reading and my spare pair is a cheap off-the-shelf that has lens distortion away from the centre. They are fine for reading but make me queasy if I move my head or turn my eyes too far from centre. I cannot imagine flying with distortion from the canopy. I am fine with aerobatics but that would make me vomit.
To clarify your comment about supercruise for those who don't know what that means: supercruise is the ability to maintain supersonic flight without using afterburners. To date (as far as I know) the only production fighters capable are the F22, Rafael, Gripen, Eurofighter, and reportedly the Su57.
You can find Concorde's flight envelope with a google search, it is not hidden information - the lowest altitude it could get supersonic at (only mach 1) is around 30,000 ft. It is likely they broke through higher due to climb optimisations, but it could be supersonic below most plane's cruise if it wanted. The lowest it could hit mach 2 within approved limits (and approved being a key word there; planes can certainly fly outside approval, and no doubt did on some test flights) was 50,000 ft. This point would have allowed the photo to be taken, even if we did take the quoted service ceiling of the tornado as accurate (it probably isn't for military reasons) and absolute (it isn't, there's no performance wall, you can scrape more out). I sadly can't include a link to the flight envelope graph, it seems, but for me it's the first image result, from researchgate, showing a roughly P shaped envelope crossed by multicoloured mach lines. There's other variants too, but this is the first, easy to read, and you can double-check my reading of it.
The detail and lengths Dave has gone to here are simply brilliant. Kudos to Adrian for his help also. When people make this much effort to inform and ensure the information is correct they deserve praise indeed
Could we for a sec acknowledge, when not taking into account of flat earthers and countering them, that Dave can make a video about pictures... And it's still freaking interesting!
Great video Dave. It's always good to see someone honestly and openly address issues pointed out to them, especially when the work done to address them leads to an improved understanding and better illustration of their original point.
I flew Concorde from JFK to LHR on 26th October 1996 G-BOAE and we crossed the Atlantic at 58,000ft in 3hrs 45 minutes ground to ground. I still have the passenger copy of my ticket and a certificate from British Airways that was signed by the flight crew as proof I flew on her. I have seen the curvature of the earth for myself from that flight and can confirm the curvature is real and accurate as depicted in the picture.
Do you seriously think that the amount of curvature evident in the 2nd Concorde photo featured at 13:22 in this video, is the actual amount of curvature that would be seen at an altitude of 60,000 feet? To anybody with even a minimal amount of common sense, the obvious answer is 'no'. How do you account for the fact that the amount of curvature in this photo is the same as what you'd see in footage taken from the International Space Station that orbits the earth at a height of 400 km (250 miles)?
Good idea reaching out to the photographer. I have used Hasselblad cameras in my career, and the Zeiss Planar 80mm f:2.8 is a very well corrected lens.
Knowing the exact lens used completely destroys the "fisheye" argument. That 80mm Zeiss lens with that Hasselblad camera will not produce a distorted image. LEO will claim some kind of trickery, after all those military are part of the conspiracy. Since it was made before CGI it will have been altered in the photo lab. People that can never be wrong scare me, it's like the people that gamble and supposedly always win. "I'm just lucky." No they aren't, it's a statistical impossibility. They are telling us tall tales.
Thats EXACTLY what i was thinking since the start of this video(once i realized the tornado you were talking about was the aircraft and not the weather phenomenon). What good would it do a jet bomber / fighter pilot to have a canopy full of distortion?
I just have to say that I am impressed with the depth of your research in preparing for each of your videos. Every one is a great intellectual adventure for the viewer. Keep up the great work!
Just a remark. To my knowledge, the Concorde had to slow down for this photo, so it was not flying close to it's maximum speed. At flew at Mach 1.35 according to the e-mail shown in the video. Concorde's max cruising speed was above Mach 2 however. This does not change the argument, but makes it much easier (or even possible) for the Tornado to intercept a Concorde.
“Biggles Flies Distorted” August 1940, an airfield in the south of England. Biggles skilfully lands his damaged Spitfire after another sortie against the Huns. Algie rushes over shouting “Why dash it Biggles, why did you not shoot down that last Boche Me109?” Biggles smirked, saying “Dash it Algie, I had him, I gave him a full belly’s worth of lead, but stupidly I forgot to adjust my aim for the confounded canopy distortion” Aglie replied “It IS dashed annoying, with planes like this we will never win the war”; and they headed off to get some soda pops and commiserate.
Spit windscreens are flat glass old chap & Bigglesworth wouldn't be seen dead drinking that foreign muck. A good old glass of warm Dandelion & Burdock is as close as he ever got to Murcan sody-pops
Actually, canopy distortion has a lesser effect than you might think in this situation IMHO. You have to remember the camera lens was probably right up against the canopy from the inside, and so only say a couple inches of perspex would have been infront of the lens. Canopy distortion would only really be an issue when you are looking through a larg area of the canopy at the same time and thus much more curvature in your frame of viewing........not the case here. I think!
So it STILL wasn't taken with a fisheye lens... What a suprise. I wonder if the hawkeyed carrot cruncher has noticed the atmosphere fading into vacuum in his unceasing quest for observable reality yet.
It is not surprise at all - using fisheye lens it would be needed to be far closer to fill the frame with subject (even with that big one & only shorter image side) and then perspective will be far different + sun reflections would be far smaller in the frame.
It would make little sense to use a fisheye lens for aerial photography as the things you're photographing are all quite far away, the Concorde here looks close but it was probably around 100m (300ft) away from the photographer.
It's been great seeing this unfold and having come to such a damning conclusion. Good on you Dave, you did the research and admitted a mistake and thoroughly corrected yourself all while providing even more evidence. Love your stuff.
I have known Adrian for many years, he was my wedding photographer. Lovely guy and his work at BA was outstanding. He has some amazing photographs of Concorde.
Brilliant research again Dave! I love the deep dives you do into photography related stuff! That book is now on my wishlist! I'm pretty sure it will be in my Christmas stockings.
Sheesh, Dave. The horizon is curved because you can see the edge of the world. Isn't that obvious? Just wish they'd gone a bit further and we could have all seen the elephants and Great A'Tuin.
An excellent, clear explanation. It also forced me to focus really hard on your description, as your beautiful dog threatened several times to steal the limelight!
"Service ceiling" and how high an aircraft can fly are not the same thing, An example of this - the English Electric Lightning Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,000 m) - interesting then to consider that a simple Google search shows that a Lightning was taken up to 87800 feet.
also, "service ceiling" isn't the max altitude a plane can reach. it's the usual max altitude they fly at under normal conditions. It's not implausible at all that they might climb up higher for a photo op and then descend again.
Hey Dave, just one small omission in this video; Nothing to the core of the matter, but Hasselblad 500 series camera's do not always shoot 6x6 cm negatives or slides. If they are equiped with a Hasselblad a16 back they shoot 645 ie 6cm by 4.5 cm negatives. Allowing for 16 shots on a roll of 120 format film instead of 12.
At the risk of going down the rabbit hole, is that why the Mamiya 645 medium format camera from the 1980s was so named? It would also take 6cm by 4.5cm?
@@alasdairhepburn5202 yes, That is the reason, The Mamiya can only do 6 x 4.5 if I recall it right and most digital Medium format camera's are also using that format. Bronica had both formats but you could not have both formats on them as the hasselblad could. None of these are particularly handy for photographing in rabbit holes though.
I love this. Amongst other things, you found: The chap who took the photo. The tail number of the Tornado that carried the pilot. The model of the Tornado and its service ceiling. What the view looks like from inside a Tornado canopy. A canopy for sale on Ebay. The type of camera and lens used to take the photo. Incredible what you can find out when you 'do your own research', isn't it? Bravo, Dave, bravo 👏
Military aircraft canopies are generally made from a material that is chosen to have minimal distortion. Because distortion makes it really hard for the pilot to accurately assess a targets location, direction, and size. Now I don't know (and can't be arsed to check) if the Tornado had such a canopy, but it probably did.
More to the point about the altitude of the Tornado, there is a difference between "service" and "absolute" ceiling. The Tornado can go much higher if you want to use afterburners (and have a very short flight)
I’ve flown in Concorde, and at Mach 2.2, the sky outside was a very dark blue, and I could definitely and easily see the gentle curvature of the earth.
I own several Hasselbald cameras and have used them for a very long time. 80mm is roughly equivalent to 50mm on a 135 film camera. In other words, what is usually called normal optics.
when at 10:00 you were talking about someone on the internet selling a Tornado canopy, my mind - trained from watching Last Week Tonight with John Oliver - half expected you to say "and it appears someone bought it and shipped it to my studio". :D
5:00 - sorry to correct you here Dave, but the Tornado ADV wasn't intended primarily for air to air combat but for intercepting Soviet bombers. Doesn't change the altitude it could reach though: a max of about 70,000 ft.
![NLE Choppa - Or What ft. 41 (Orchestra Mix) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/biOFASEgSOM/mqdefault.jpg)
I think Adrian really deserves a lot of credit here. He took time out of his day to help Dave, a complete stranger, to understand more about his work, and enabled us to geek out over both his fantastic photographs, and the technological marvel that was Concorde.
I did indeed geek out over this :P
Thanks, Adrian and Dave!
He was The photographer for Concorde - this has to be one of the highlights of his career. I'm sure he didn't mind sharing the information.
Also, Dave is a fellow photographer - even more reason to share his experiences.
As a photographer myself and well acknowledging optics and optic aberrations, I can with great confidence say that the photograph was shot through a thick window that had the potential to distort the image, not to mention that many lenses back then were not really best corrected for geometric distortions. There are fish eye lenses that do not use a 180 degree field of view but rather 120 or even less! That is to minimize the size ad keep sharpness strong, a practice that was revived in recent years for digital cameras that have the ability to fully correct geometric distortions.
So there is no way the curve of the Earth could have bee so drastic as in this image at that altitude and that field of view without having some barrel distortion at play that is even on the plane itself and it fools us. We need to account for all the facts, otherwise these idiots of flat earthers would come at us!
In order to see the curvature at that still low altitude, you need a much wider field of view and a really well corrected lens!
@@ivanpetrov5255 Pros share with pros! ❤ Amazing photos!
The potential for the plane canopy to distort the image was addressed in some detail in the video, as was the amount of curve shown.
Dave: Makes a very informative video correcting a misconception
LEO: Makes a condescending and toxic response
Dave: Corrects mistakes he made and proves he is even MORE right in the process
LEO is one of the flerfs with a mental health issue. Like CC. Don´t take anything serious that he utters.
LEO: becomes even more condescending and toxic because his BS has been destroyed.
This also proves that more good research yields better, and thus more accurate, information rather than the hapless and hopeless L.E.O could ever muster. As per usual the no drama presentation by Dave delivers another death blow to a Flerfer of the obnoxious variety, which of course is pretty much the only variety they come in.
@@DanielKay06
These FLERFs will never get it. Flat earth has been scientifically disproven using real science, which the opposition doesn’t know how to use, nor do they understand it.
I don't think LEO can speak in non-prick mode. Just imagine any sentence said in his voice, like "could you pass the syrup"
As a veteran, I can also tell you that the supposed performance of military hardware released to the public is often reduced so as not to inform potential adversaries of their true capabilities. So a stock Typhoon might well be able to reach 70,000 feet, especially if it's not carrying any weapons or extra fuel which add weight.
I was thinking along the same lines, that the published operational maximum is where it is rated to perform all its necessary functions not the actual technical limit.
I forget the term for it but there is also a difference between the limit of what an airframe can endure once vs what it can endure repeatedly.
Weight AND drag. Both having an influence on performance.
Exactly this. I’ve been an airplane/fighter jet nut for years. We as the public have no idea of the real capabilities of any jet technology. For example the SR71 is the fastest airplane to fly but iirc there was one or two of the blackbirds that their pilots have said flew faster than any of the others. They trimmed up sweetly and just wanted to fly faster. The confirmed top speed has reportedly been said to be less than actually achieved
Also hardly anyone knows what the term "service ceiling" actually means. It's typically defined as the altitude at which the aircraft is still capable of climbing at 500 ft/min at a constant airspeed. So by the very definition of "service ceiling" it is possible to fly higher than it. And if you allow a non-constant airspeed (trading speed for altitude), then you can fly much higher, if only for a short time (on a parabolic trajectory).
👍 I have seen many vids with retired military pilots of all types, and they routinely describe that published spec. almost always was below real world performance.
the difference between Dave's mistakes and flerfs' is that Dave can sort his out in ten minute videos, the flerfs couldn't with an entire movie
The flerfs haven't sorted out their mistakes in an entire millennium. You get the 'Understatement of the Century" award. 🙂
It's bold to assume flat earthers would ever admit to a mistake.
And he actually reaches out to sources and finds out more info
Flerfs don't make corrections, they double down..
@@carl_smiley_face1396 Sounds like Dave did some actual research. Unlike flerfs.
Love that when you're wrong and release a correction, it just leads to more evidence that the main point of your argument still stands.
Too bad for LEO he has never bothered doing anything that well or he would not be so confidently wrong.
Yeah, I love this too 😂
Every objection a flatty makes only reinforces the facts of the matter.
If LEO was a TENTH as honest as Dave, he wouldn't be a flatard any longer.
When he said that someone was selling a canopy, I was worried for a moment that the next thing Dave said was "So I bought the canopy and made some tests". I wouldn't be surprised if he went that deep :P
@@rylanasher4756watching flat earhters is like watching Whose Line Is It Anyway where their points are made up and the facts don’t matter.
Science is all about being wrong and understanding why, and re-researching, and learning.
Flerfing is all about being right.
Dave made a minor mistake, and in correcting it has himself a lovely looking book of photos, has learned something about British military aircraft, and made a new and interesting acquaintance.
LEO has learned nothing and just made himself look a right cock, again.
Talk about a master class in actually doing research. Far better than the fools who just make up what ever is needed to fit their argument. Keep up the good work!
Yeah. Assuming the height of the plane and whether the photo is cropped vs. just emailing the original photographer.
In any case, service ceiling is not the absolute maximum ceiling. This doesn't have a direct bearing on the photo but does serve to highlight Level Earth Observer seeking data that supports a position rather than constructing a position from the data.
That's what I was thinking throughout too. An aircraft in a different configuration could fly higher than that (ie, not laden down with munitions), which is partially what the Fighter variant is doing to gain that extra ceiling (light AA missiles vs gound munitions and fuel tanks)
@@MrVelociraptor75 Absolutely. Remove those military external loads and the plane can fly significantly higher.
@@MrVelociraptor75 Service height has a very easy definition. It is the maximum height at which a plane could still climb at 500ft per minute for jet aircraft.
So given that the mobility of a plane would be limited if it can't reliably move higher at that point it is reasonable to limit it's service to below that. However outside of combat there is no reason for such a plane to not fly higher. Given that the definition literally states that the plane can still climb at 500ft per minute at that height it can obviously still climb.
And obviously making the plane lighter improving the engines or even changes to friction and air resistance could change that value.
@@rudolfquerstein6710 also, I might add, this is the "public" service ceiling of a military aircraft. It's like the one time one should justifiably be a little bit skeptic of the numbers they work with, unless they have access to a war thunder player.
@@rudolfquerstein6710There’s also the annoying little fact that most militaries aren’t completely honest with the public (and therefore potential enemies) about exactly what their capabilities are.
Wouldn’t surprise me one bit if the true service ceiling of the Tornado is several thousand feet higher than published.
This is a useful demonstration of the difference between 'doing your research' and *actually* doing some research.
I do wonder if LEO, when checking the service ceiling of the Tornado, just handwaved away the other values given or simply stopped once he saw the 50K because he has his 'gotcha!' and that's all his 'research' is designed to achieve.
Well his argument that the MIR deorbit was really a Mig was that the plane he wanted to say it was had one big missile and four small ones so the same, implying what we see is just the missile from the plane while the plane is never visible. Did they borrow Wonder Woman's?
It's really amusing to me how this entire discussion originated from:
"If it's round there'd be a visible curve!"
"Here's a visible curve."
"That photo can't be legitimate because there's a visible curve!"
They don't actually want evidence. They just want confirmation of what they (claim to) believe.
Based on their backpedalling over the "Final Experiment" in Antarctica BEFORE it happened, I have serious doubts as to whether they actually believe their own talking points.
@@irwinshung809 There's no way someone with an actual channel dedicated to "proving" flat earth can actually believe it. Time and time again videos like Dave's and other's show that the observations or experiments they do are intentionally misleading, or leave out important parameters to make it seem like they are making a point. A very basic example being some guy using an infrared thermometer to take the temperature of the sun (from here - on Earth). It's not possible to be smart enough to run a youtube channel but dumb enough to think those thermometers work over even a mile, much less 93 million (or 10,000 or whatever their dome claims are)
@@irwinshung809of course not. Not the ones with the flat earth channels milking the ad revenue and patreon or other forms of crowdfunding or sponsoring. People in their audience, certainly, but not the grifters with the yt channels.
I have a number of holiday snaps with a clear horizon where the sea meets the sky and they all show the same degree of curve. You don't need to go up in an aircraft to see it, just compress the photo width and it is clear that it is curved no matter if it is above, at or below the centre of the picture and with different cameras. I have even done it with a screen shot from someone else's RUclips video off the East Anglia coast.
@@EvenTheDogAgrees Are there any companies actually willing to give a flerfer a sponsorship deal?
It'd be hilarious if they were offered one by a company that makes globes.
I flew on the BA Concorde twice, we flew at 57k feet at Mach 2.2, which I remember having the captain sign in my Concorde brochure material in my seat . The curvature, and darkness of the sky, was visually apparent out the window with my own eyes.
you must have fish eyes lol
I havn't flown on Concorde, but the curvature of the earth can be evident even from lower altitudes in more common subsonic jets.
I had the same experience on an Air France Concorde. Shame it takes such effort to educate some people.
@@alasdairblack393Do not educate them and don’t waste your time on them 😊
@@UraFlight I disagree with this stance. While it's true that most will be impenetrable to evidence and stick to their ideas no matter what, some will not, and even that small percentage of people is worth the effort.
The outrageous number of L's that LEO has suffered in his flerf career tells us he has a superhuman resistance to shame and embarrassment.
The guy just can't stop being wrong! It's absolutely amasing.
Another brilliant video, Dave.
It's pronounce LLLLLEO, same cadence as the Chia Pet jingle.
@@billbill6094 😂 everytime he opens his mouth, an extra L is added to his name.
Based on the numbers, I have to say flerfs seem to be driven by the need to fell shame. They certainly refuse to believe much of anything that has not been soundly ridiculed by most of humanity.
Sounds exactly like a narcissist.
@@kellydalstok8900 Level Earth Observer definitely has dark triad traits.
As someone who was raised in a cult, I get why it's so hard to let go of something you believe in strongly. Still, it frustrates me to see flat earthers deny evidence so strongly just because it reminds me of how much my parents refused to listen to me when I tried explaining why I was leaving the cult and trying to save THEM from wasting the rest of their lives. While it can be fun to point and laugh, true believers of the flat earth should be pitied. It's a very sad thing to believe so strongly in something that's so obviously not true to the point it makes you a social pariah.
This is why I love Dave's videos so much. He doesn't get involved in the name calling or value judgements that other people do. He just presents the evidence and lets that speak for itself.
@@PeterMoore66
That's also why I like Dave's videos more than other Flat Earth debunkers! Plus, he's taught me a ton of stuff about cameras that I never knew.
While I understand your viewpoint, and can respect it, these are stupid people who are willingly indoctrinated. I have no sympathy for stupidity of that degree, and they can go fuck themselves.
@@PeterMoore66 There are definitely times to call out someone's values, like when you KNOW they're lying and are a grifter making money off people that believe in this stuff. But yeah, definitely better to keep it civil, because when you make things personal and start getting into jabs, it gives your argument less power. When you speak the evidence and STICK to the evidence, all they can do is try to fight that and that's a damn difficult fight.
@@NoFalseTruth I would argue that refuting everything with 'nuh-uh!' is very easy.
When you mentioned that someone is selling a Tornado canopy, for a second i thought the next sentence would be: "I bought it" or you contacted the seller to make a visit, to take your own pictures out from under the canopy.
My thoughts exactly. But the pallet was good enough evidence, not to mention canopies are designed to introduce as little distortion as possible.
I bet there are aircraft museums where you could sit in a closed cockpit with a curved canopy and take a video to show no distortion.
@@martinconnelly1473 Plus it looks like for the person in the rear seat especially, there is little if any curvature of the canopy from front to back. It appears to me more or less like a section of a cylinder. For an observer looking out to the side, it would be curving over their head but not much if at all when looking side to side. Not even remotely like the bubble canopy of something like a P51 Mustang for example. And I strongly suspect even that old warbird would not provide more than a fraction of the distortion claimed by the flerfers in this argument.
Googling it I not only found the same pic as Dave used but another one where it is sitting on some brick paving, with the bricks viewed through it just as clear and undistorted to the naked eye as the ones surrounding it.
"And through the magic of buying two of them..."
Wow I've never heard someone _actually_ pull the "hmm yes how curious" voice to try to seem smart until that flerf guy being wrong. And those comments saying Dave has "confirmation bias" while they themselves were so deep in confirmation bias that they 1. completely ignored how the Concorde had no curvature which was the entire point of the last video and 2. completely failed to wonder why the Brit's Royal Air Force would install beer goggles on a fighter jet.
There is no reasoning with people like this, I think they just love feeling superior for being contrarian which is what they believe being "smart" is.
They sunk the ship to avoid the cost of fixing a hole.
2. Canopy/windshield curvature would only be (semi) important to the (flying) pilot. Irrespective, pilots can learn to compensate for the curvature of windshields and helmet visors during critical phases of flight.
The Concorde photo was most definitely taken from the second (presumably non-flying) seat which would arguably distort less than the pilot's multi-faceted windscreens. There is distortion shown shown in this Tornado 2nd seat video, but only when not viewing at 90 degrees to the canopy.
ruclips.net/video/JJOuIpb2rZ8/видео.html
@@ImperrfectStranger absolutely agree. Canopies are pretty good but not perfect: distortion will depend on what area is being looked through and, I think, also at the angle of incidence.
Also love the rock-solid belief of the guy who made the comment in 50k feet being the 'surface(!) ceiling', when altitudes are pressure readings, not absolute, and published service ceilings of military aircraft might well be different to what the aircraft is actually capable of...
10:27 - just before Dave made that point, the thought "Would a fighter jet have windows that distort the vision? They probably use mostly instruments, but there must be cases where eyeballing is necessary. Surely, a distorting window will be a disadvantage." crossed my mind.
No, the canopies are designed to provide the greatest visual field of view with the least distortion. The mark one eyeball is still the instrument of choice for close in engagements.
Also, being able to see how far the ground is for landing would be a lot less confusing if it's 1:1 to regular vision
When dog fighting, you absolutely need clear vision and without distortion as you need to be able to evaluate distances correctly.
@@PeerAdder The ability to see what might be heading your way is useful for things that instruments can't detect accurately. An IR homing missile for example. The canopy on a Tornado F2 is pretty flat along it's length, so that in itself keeps distortion low.
I came here straight after seeing part of “Behind Enemy Lines” when Owen gets shot down which was a fluff piece for the USAF. They are looking for incoming missiles as the tech wasn’t that great even in the late 1990s, early 2000s. This is a plane from a flight 15 years earlier using a design from the late 1960s prior to even remotely good electronic detection and visuals were more important than now.
Ah, LEO. Mr "earth isn't a globe but I've no idea what it is, but it isn't a globe"... The "demonstrable realist"... The only thing that is demonstrable is LEO's incredulity.
And his wilful ignorance, propensity to cherry pick, his extreme confirmation bias, and his total lack of honesty.
it's not a globe, it's a cube!!
@@zebo-the-fat Nah, it's an infinitely sided die weighted die.
It’s a geoid. Flattened at the poles and bulging at the equator, cos it’s spinning
I love the irony of LEO going off on a tangent that ultimately helped provide more solid evidence for the curve in the photo.
Flat Earthers really need to stop pointing out slight errors in your videos, just gives you a chance to disprove them harder. Excellent video, superb research
And a big shout-out to Adrian. What a legend!
Indeed!
Congratulations on a brilliant response to the critics!
Dave the research you've done to back this up makes me love you more.
Keep it up.
The ADV was designed to essentially loiter above the North Sea, to intercept Soviet bombers, in a heavy electronic warfare environment in all weathers.
That’s why they never replaced the F-4’s in Germany, MiG-29 country, as it wasn’t a dogfighter.
I worked for BA 1983-2020, in BA Concorde Engineering 1997-2003.
The in house BA News put this photo on the cover, as part of an extensive feature on those new cabins and the return to service of G-BOAG, the aircraft in the picture.
One of the Engineers in Concorde Maintenance was on G-BOAG for this flight, it was at Mach 2, 50,000ft.
Though even the unarmed, stripped down Tornado F2 struggled to keep up!
The last of my 7 flights on Concorde, was G-BOAE’s to Barbados in November 2003, the page you showed mentioning it and the altitude, certainly showed how it was the most well defined curvature of the Earth I saw, though you could also at 55-58,000 feet North Atlantic runs. But this flight not only had the extra altitude but clear conditions, like Adrian’s photo.
@grahambuckerfield4640 Thank you. But do you make such comments on FLERF's channels? I would love to see a thread with you debunking every claim that they have.
@@rickkwitkoski1976 Flat Earthers? I won’t waste my time, like with Apollo hoaxers and the rest.
This is exactly what I thought, they were part of our QRU.
Service Ceiling is not the maximum altitude a plane can fly. LEO was wrong to state that.
Service Ceiling is the altitude at which rate of climb reduces to 100 feet per minute. The plane can physically fly higher. Absolute Ceiling is always higher than Service Ceiling .
As you pointed out though, that is irrelevant as the Tornado variant used could fly higher than the Concorde.
LEO still doesn’t understand the horizon curve at these altitudes is not the 1 degree per 60 Nautical Miles curve of the Earth. It is the curve of the small circle defined by distance to horizon viewed at shallow angle.
They often get that wrong.
Service ceiling is measured at max weight. Also pressure varies at a given altitude. So yes you can likely go higher
That's very cool that the original photographer Adrian got back to you and shared the added info. Lots of cool stuff learned and seen here.
And thanks for sharing that beautiful last photo. Concorde almost looks like a spaceship there!
Is good to know Dave "did his own research", and showed it.
It deserves recognition how much work you put into your videos to create perfectly prepared facts with your knowledge and that you also meticulously prepare any corrections to what you have previously said.
Hats off to you!
That's why I enjoy watching your videos.
One comment on the "service ceiling": it is not the *absolute* ceiling. Means: an aircraft with a service ceiling of 50,000 ft can still fly at higher altitudes.
Question would be: would the pilot be allowed to exceed the service ceiling during a photo shoot? During a lead laden enemy shoot, sure! But a photo shoot?
@@KonradTheWizzard The service ceiling, and most of a plane's stats is often low-balled by militaries to hide its actual capabilities to enemies. Easiest example are reports of SR-71 pilots going faster than what everyone says it's top speed is. Also, you can go a lot higher when not carrying external weapons. A photoshoot with clean wings and nothing to need serious maneuvering is the best time to go up high.
@@Appletank8 "The service ceiling, and most of a plane's stats is often low-balled by militaries to hide its actual capabilities to enemies. Easiest example are reports of SR-71 pilots going faster than what everyone says it's top speed is. "
I second this. Another example is the Su-25. It is known to many people for its alleged role in the downing of MH-17. Back then, in 2014, Sukhoi's website showed a service ceiling of 7,500 m for this type. However, there were videos of this type available showing it flying at higher altitudes.
@@johncatty6560 No one in their right mind thinks an su-25 shot down an airliner. I'm not sure where you got that particular bit of utterly false info, but the downing of MH-17 had nothing to do with Su-25 (a ground strike aircraft, never used for air to air missions). It was shot down by a Buk 9M38 surface-to-air missile. This is public knowledge.
@@memkiii "No one in their right mind thinks an su-25 shot down an airliner."
True that. English is not my mother tongue. But I thought that putting "alleged role" in the sentence would make it clear that I do not believe in this story.
"I'm not sure where you got that particular bit of utterly false info, but the downing of MH-17 had nothing to do with Su-25 (a ground strike aircraft, never used for air to air missions)."
The Russians brought up this easy-to-debunk fairy tale shortly after the event. Once they delivered the raw data of their radar, they stopped talking about this nonsense. Because the data did not show any Su-25 near MH17.
"It was shot down by a Buk 9M38 surface-to-air missile. This is public knowledge."
Yup.
I cannot help but to somewhat respect LEO's dedication to always being wrong. The man is unstoppable!
Well even Dave admits he was right in this video
@@AndySmith4501 Poor Andy, dedicated to humiliating himself because... reasons.
@@leftpastsaturn67
Oh I'm sorry. Are you saying Dave didn't admit LEO was correct? If so what's the point of entitling a video "I WAS MISTAKEN ABOUT THIS CONCORD PHOTO" I can't wait for this
@@AndySmith4501 Go ahead and provide a quote from the video, or if that's too complicated, add a timestamp.
Squirm away larper.
And thanks for proving my point about you once again.
@@AndySmith4501 he was right that the photo had been cropped...but it wasn't cropped in any meaningful way...and his wikipedia skills failed him as he failed to find the different variants of the tornado...and curved windows do not distort stuff...it is the fucking military, who would distort the pilot's vision like that
Dave, you are the only true "debunker" I've seen on RUclips. Everyone else just calls flearths crazy without demonstrating HOW they're crazy. I'm so glad you're going down to the South Pole to represent science.
Ever tried Greater Sapien, Critical Think or Bob The Science Guy? There are also old legends like Wolfie6020 and Jesse Kozlowski, a professional pilor and professional surveyor who demonstrate in great detail why FE claims are wrong. And let's not forget Jos Leys with his short, clear videos.
There are also a host of very small super-nerdy channels like Bert Rickles and Tommy Grønvold.
I don't agree. Prof Dave, MC Toon, SciManDan, Sir Sic, even FTFE when he isn't incandescent with rage, among many others, all provide the counter arguments, they just can't resist mocking flerfs mercilessly to boot, and so they should.
Search for Cool Hard Logic's total demolitions of every flerf claim if you want to see how such wilful ignorance and grifting should really be dismissed.
IMO there's no need to be polite with people who are *_wilfully_* ignorant, who mindlessly dismiss without justification all counter evidence (even their own) as wrong or fake, and who routinely call all scientists and engineers liars while simultaneously using the products of the science they deny to promulgate their delusions.
That's not completey true, but it does annoy me sometimes dat the flerfs are not properly debunked. It's kind of a "Trust me bro!"-statement. It's the same tactic Flatties use.
@transient_ Yeah, but when someone that trusts reality does it, you can trust them. When someone believes in the space pizza, you simply cannot "trust me, bro."
Professor Dave also has some good flat earth stuff, though he tends to be a lot less respectful if that is enough to turn you away. A lot of his debunkings are centered around creationists though.
I wonder what their next argument is.
I have a hunch- their argument now is "I won't watch this video."
nah, its the same old argument as always: "nu-uh!"
They'll just flood the comment section with lots of responses that have nothing to do with what Dave talks about in the video.
In debate this is a derivative of the "I won't play this video, cuz of copyright or whatnot" argument, a strong defense when the video in question is devestating to your case.
@@protonjinx Or something like "just think about it, it's obvious dumbass". I can just say the same thing I thought when my math prof said this (w/o the dumbass of cause): Is it though?
When you’re wrong you’re still more right than they are.
"Sorry, I made a mistake. It turns out I was more correct than previously claimed."
I've seen the curve, during my RAF career I was lucky enough to get 2 back seat jollies in an ADV.
Lucky git I'm so jealous.
Enjoy Antartica in December! Can't wait until it happens :)
I hear summer in Antarctica is beautiful
@@atticstattic Imagine a summer without mosquitos :D
Im sure he destroys the 💩 out of it while those flat earthers will not do ANY science, just being silent untill they found their "Nuh-uh" voice again
Concord could cruise at 60,000 but was capable of going higher. And it's typical of Adam LEO to cherry pick for his flat earth fantasy.
To be fair, I pointed out the same issue with the altitude claim. Getting a Tornado to cruise at 60k ft plus isn’t really going to happen, at least with a normal one. I don’t know if they have recon versions capable of flying higher.
@@rapid13if you watched the video you would know the camera plane had a service ceiling of 70,000 feet...
@@rapid13 Watch the video! And listen!
@@rapid13why are you commenting when you OBVIOUSLY haven't watched a second of the video?
@@rapid13why are you commenting when you CLEARLY haven't watched ANY of the video?
Never heard about the channel, never seen the photo, never saw the original video, i stayed till the end, great video, thanks youtube algorithm
Same here!
I'd love to see LEO's response to this. The new evidence you brought up is pretty damning for his "rebuttal".
I can hear the goalposts being shifted as I type...
Service ceiling is not an maximum altitude, its just an altitude where climb rate has reduced beyond some limit.
I flew in an F16 near 50K ft and you can see the curvature of the Earth at that altitude. Flat Earthers are weird
I can see the curvature of the earth taking off from a runway in front of an expanse of water. It’s fun watching boats and islands “appear” as you gain altitude.
Before c0vid I would have agreed with you.
But now in 2024… I would no longer be surprised if flat earthers were to be proven right anyday now…
I’ll stick to the roundy thing for now…
And the theory for its birth being… “at first there was nothing, then it exploded…”
I'm glad you are going to Antarctica this December. Having a skilled photographer on site will hopefully pull some people back to sanity.
It is also worth noting that "service ceiling" is not the same things as "absolute ceiling" in aviation. The FAA defines service ceiling as “the maximum density altitude where the best rate of climb airspeed will produce a climb of 100 feet per minute at maximum weight while in a clean configuration with maximum continuous power.” Absolute ceiling, on the other hand, is the altitude at which an aircraft can no longer climb at all, only maintain level flight. That means that an aircraft with a service ceiling of 50,000ft can potentially fly higher, but at reduced rate of climb, especially if it is not flying at its maximum weight.
And I doubt that they would use a fully loaded jet for a photographer.
Actually that is for a prop-driven aircraft. For a jet it is 500 fpm (I learnt recently that EASA and CAA don't specify. It is just a certain, chosen rate of climb).
Brother, would you please make a video about your preparations for the trip to Antarctica? Like camera decisions, clothes, etc. But also talking about your emotions of the journey. You are very fact based in your videos making them awesome, but it would be cool to hear about the "Emotional" side of it. Do you think about it daily? Have you had any dreams of it or being there? Are you super excited? A bit "Scared" well not scared as much as, you are going to one of the most dangerous places to be on the Earth. It's a once in a lifetime trip, I am just curious about how that feels. To know you are going. It must be a bit overwhelming. Not just for you, but all attending. One of the few times the word "Epic" can be used in it's correct sense of the word. This is a true Epic adventure!
As an aviation enthusiast, this was absolutely brilliant! Thanks Dave for the detailed research and invaluable information. Wishing you even more success with your already successful channel.
Love the fact Dave owns up when he's made even a slight mistake, and then goes and finds further evidence to explain and support the conclusions. Flerf's and any conspiracy theories would never do anything like that - it would be excuse, excuse, denial, word salad, excuse, denial, more word salad etc. This is one of the things that makes Dave a superior human being!
For a brief moment I thought Dave had bought a Tornado canopy.
The thought did cross my mind 🤣
@@DaveMcKeegan I think the book was the better investment. 😸
@@simond.455 Yeah, but how many people can actually claim to own a canopy from a fighter jet? That'd make an awesome decoration if you had the room to display it.
@@DaveMcKeegan why are you as dishonest as a christian and avoid the fact their beliefs are far worse than getting a shape wrong! They claim theres a magical cloud pixie (clouds is where heaven is) because a book that says the 6000yo _____ earth has a dome with water above it etc!
Dave, please ignore the people who question your authenticity or trustworthiness. We know that you are someone who does their absolute best to get the facts right, and we all make minor mistakes here and there. No one is perfect. Cheers!
Nah, this video is a response to those people who questioned his authenticity and would not have happened had he ignored them. I'm glad he didn't.
@@youuuuuuuuuuutube I didn't mean he shouldn't make this video. I meant he should feel good about himself. His fans know he's trustworthy
Hey LEO, better do your research. Because Dave is definitely going to.
It's tiring that somebody considers looking up something in Wikipedia as 'doing research', and then has the audacity to make a reaction video from it.
Great video! I've always loved Concorde. In my opinion, the most beautiful aircraft ever built.
Dave, you'd make an excellent teacher. You're explanations are clear and often supply two or more options to interpret the main point. ALl very good. Thank you for sharing and keep it up.
Dave didn't really make a mistake, he just didn't have all the information--which is different from being wrong.
I do need to do some research at which point in the flight where Concorde flies supersonic. One of the unique features of Concorde that most fighter aircraft don't have is the ability to supercruise and maintain supersonic. I do not think it needs to be at 50 to 60,000 feet to do so, so it is possible that Concorde may had been below 50,000 feet for the photo to be taken. It would be great if the Tornado pilot is still around so we could just ask him what he flew at.
As for canopies, it is actually designed to have as little distortion as possible. This also prevents pilots becoming dizzy from the optical effects, and one of the reasons Formula One adopted the Halo cockpit protection rather than a screen canopy like Ferrari trialed in 2016 or 2017. IndyCar did adopt the Aeroscreen and it is made by PPG who does develop jet fighter canopies, and the drivers reported minimal distortion and no disorientation despite the curve of the canopy being quite drastic.
Flerfs just don't understand optics.
Flerfs don't understand anything.
Yes, I have just started using glasses for reading and my spare pair is a cheap off-the-shelf that has lens distortion away from the centre. They are fine for reading but make me queasy if I move my head or turn my eyes too far from centre. I cannot imagine flying with distortion from the canopy. I am fine with aerobatics but that would make me vomit.
To clarify your comment about supercruise for those who don't know what that means: supercruise is the ability to maintain supersonic flight without using afterburners. To date (as far as I know) the only production fighters capable are the F22, Rafael, Gripen, Eurofighter, and reportedly the Su57.
You can find Concorde's flight envelope with a google search, it is not hidden information - the lowest altitude it could get supersonic at (only mach 1) is around 30,000 ft. It is likely they broke through higher due to climb optimisations, but it could be supersonic below most plane's cruise if it wanted. The lowest it could hit mach 2 within approved limits (and approved being a key word there; planes can certainly fly outside approval, and no doubt did on some test flights) was 50,000 ft.
This point would have allowed the photo to be taken, even if we did take the quoted service ceiling of the tornado as accurate (it probably isn't for military reasons) and absolute (it isn't, there's no performance wall, you can scrape more out).
I sadly can't include a link to the flight envelope graph, it seems, but for me it's the first image result, from researchgate, showing a roughly P shaped envelope crossed by multicoloured mach lines. There's other variants too, but this is the first, easy to read, and you can double-check my reading of it.
@@iskierka8399 If I had remembered the term "flight envelope" I would have known to look. Thanks
The detail and lengths Dave has gone to here are simply brilliant. Kudos to Adrian for his help also. When people make this much effort to inform and ensure the information is correct they deserve praise indeed
Could we for a sec acknowledge, when not taking into account of flat earthers and countering them, that Dave can make a video about pictures... And it's still freaking interesting!
I love that you actually did further research and further proved the point. Great job!
Without thinking about curve or no curve those are some fantastic pictures of the Concorde.
Admitting mistakes and delivering even deeper en better research as a result. Class!
Great video Dave. It's always good to see someone honestly and openly address issues pointed out to them, especially when the work done to address them leads to an improved understanding and better illustration of their original point.
I flew Concorde from JFK to LHR on 26th October 1996 G-BOAE and we crossed the Atlantic at 58,000ft in 3hrs 45 minutes ground to ground.
I still have the passenger copy of my ticket and a certificate from British Airways that was signed by the flight crew as proof I flew on her.
I have seen the curvature of the earth for myself from that flight and can confirm the curvature is real and accurate as depicted in the picture.
Do you seriously think that the amount of curvature evident in the 2nd Concorde photo featured at 13:22 in this video, is the actual amount of curvature that would be seen at an altitude of 60,000 feet?
To anybody with even a minimal amount of common sense, the obvious answer is 'no'.
How do you account for the fact that the amount of curvature in this photo is the same as what you'd see in footage taken from the International Space Station that orbits the earth at a height of 400 km (250 miles)?
Good idea reaching out to the photographer. I have used Hasselblad cameras in my career, and the Zeiss Planar 80mm f:2.8 is a very well corrected lens.
Knowing the exact lens used completely destroys the "fisheye" argument. That 80mm Zeiss lens with that Hasselblad camera will not produce a distorted image. LEO will claim some kind of trickery, after all those military are part of the conspiracy. Since it was made before CGI it will have been altered in the photo lab.
People that can never be wrong scare me, it's like the people that gamble and supposedly always win. "I'm just lucky." No they aren't, it's a statistical impossibility. They are telling us tall tales.
Thats EXACTLY what i was thinking since the start of this video(once i realized the tornado you were talking about was the aircraft and not the weather phenomenon). What good would it do a jet bomber / fighter pilot to have a canopy full of distortion?
I just have to say that I am impressed with the depth of your research in preparing for each of your videos. Every one is a great intellectual adventure for the viewer. Keep up the great work!
Good on you for admitting when you’re wrong about something. An admirable quality that flerfs could learn from.
Flerfs could learn from? Nah,will never happen.
I hope, someday, for the kind of love that that dog has for you.
Don't think there was ever a "mistake", but loved this extension of the first video.
Just a remark. To my knowledge, the Concorde had to slow down for this photo, so it was not flying close to it's maximum speed. At flew at Mach 1.35 according to the e-mail shown in the video. Concorde's max cruising speed was above Mach 2 however. This does not change the argument, but makes it much easier (or even possible) for the Tornado to intercept a Concorde.
“Biggles Flies Distorted”
August 1940, an airfield in the south of England. Biggles skilfully lands his damaged Spitfire after another sortie against the Huns.
Algie rushes over shouting “Why dash it Biggles, why did you not shoot down that last Boche Me109?”
Biggles smirked, saying “Dash it Algie, I had him, I gave him a full belly’s worth of lead, but stupidly I forgot to adjust my aim for the confounded canopy distortion”
Aglie replied “It IS dashed annoying, with planes like this we will never win the war”; and they headed off to get some soda pops and commiserate.
So, because the design and materials used on the Spitfire in 1940, the Tornado should suffer the same problem?
LMAO
Spit windscreens are flat glass old chap & Bigglesworth wouldn't be seen dead drinking that foreign muck. A good old glass of warm Dandelion & Burdock is as close as he ever got to Murcan sody-pops
Actually, canopy distortion has a lesser effect than you might think in this situation IMHO. You have to remember the camera lens was probably right up against the canopy from the inside, and so only say a couple inches of perspex would have been infront of the lens. Canopy distortion would only really be an issue when you are looking through a larg area of the canopy at the same time and thus much more curvature in your frame of viewing........not the case here.
I think!
So it STILL wasn't taken with a fisheye lens...
What a suprise.
I wonder if the hawkeyed carrot cruncher has noticed the atmosphere fading into vacuum in his unceasing quest for observable reality yet.
It is not surprise at all - using fisheye lens it would be needed to be far closer to fill the frame with subject (even with that big one & only shorter image side) and then perspective will be far different + sun reflections would be far smaller in the frame.
It would make little sense to use a fisheye lens for aerial photography as the things you're photographing are all quite far away, the Concorde here looks close but it was probably around 100m (300ft) away from the photographer.
It's been great seeing this unfold and having come to such a damning conclusion. Good on you Dave, you did the research and admitted a mistake and thoroughly corrected yourself all while providing even more evidence. Love your stuff.
Every argument surgical removed. Brilliant. And in a matter of fact tone. Love it.
Dave, I have a feeling you would've bought that book regardless of if it had anything useful for this video.
I have known Adrian for many years, he was my wedding photographer. Lovely guy and his work at BA was outstanding. He has some amazing photographs of Concorde.
Brilliant research again Dave! I love the deep dives you do into photography related stuff! That book is now on my wishlist! I'm pretty sure it will be in my Christmas stockings.
Sheesh, Dave. The horizon is curved because you can see the edge of the world. Isn't that obvious? Just wish they'd gone a bit further and we could have all seen the elephants and Great A'Tuin.
I've been asking flerfers for pictures of the edge, or the elephants underneath for years, and not a single one has ever been able to show them to me.
But that would have meant crashing into the dome...
I want to see the lands Bilbo and the Elves sailed to. 😢
@@Green_Tea_Coffee That's because the Elephants are very shy!
@@RobotacularRoBob It's just south of Narnia and a bit east of Neverland.
An excellent, clear explanation. It also forced me to focus really hard on your description, as your beautiful dog threatened several times to steal the limelight!
"Service ceiling" and how high an aircraft can fly are not the same thing, An example of this - the English Electric Lightning Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,000 m) - interesting then to consider that a simple Google search shows that a Lightning was taken up to 87800 feet.
I also wondered if the photo had been cropped. I like how thorough you guys are.
Props to you for doing the legwork and making sure your info is accurate and truthful, Dave!
also, "service ceiling" isn't the max altitude a plane can reach. it's the usual max altitude they fly at under normal conditions.
It's not implausible at all that they might climb up higher for a photo op and then descend again.
Dave is never wrong....Flerfs are wrong.
"Dave wiess is a scammer" they aren't always wrong
Dave Mckeegan is sometimes wrong, but when he is, he admits it, and attempts to clarify things.
Dave is sometimes wrong, and corrects it.
Flerfs never admit to being wrong. This is a red flag. *Nobody* is *always* right!
These best! Love how you take a straight-forward, non emotional, research based approach to your videos!
Hey Dave, just one small omission in this video; Nothing to the core of the matter, but Hasselblad 500 series camera's do not always shoot 6x6 cm negatives or slides. If they are equiped with a Hasselblad a16 back they shoot 645 ie 6cm by 4.5 cm negatives. Allowing for 16 shots on a roll of 120 format film instead of 12.
Thanks for the clarification 👍🏻
At the risk of going down the rabbit hole, is that why the Mamiya 645 medium format camera from the 1980s was so named? It would also take 6cm by 4.5cm?
@@alasdairhepburn5202 yes, That is the reason, The Mamiya can only do 6 x 4.5 if I recall it right and most digital Medium format camera's are also using that format. Bronica had both formats but you could not have both formats on them as the hasselblad could.
None of these are particularly handy for photographing in rabbit holes though.
I don't know why people are trying to disprove the curvature when even a flat Earth would curve down towards the camera.
I love this. Amongst other things, you found: The chap who took the photo. The tail number of the Tornado that carried the pilot. The model of the Tornado and its service ceiling. What the view looks like from inside a Tornado canopy. A canopy for sale on Ebay. The type of camera and lens used to take the photo.
Incredible what you can find out when you 'do your own research', isn't it? Bravo, Dave, bravo 👏
I actually laughed out loud when Dave got to the part where he found a Tornado canopy for sale.
i really wonder what's the story behind that one. Who the hell sells a fighter jet canopy??
@@dyamonde9555 Military surplus auction maybe?
I was expecting the next shot would cut to it in his living room "so I bought it to test it for myself' would have been hilarious
@@bueb8674 That would have been hilarious.
Military aircraft canopies are generally made from a material that is chosen to have minimal distortion. Because distortion makes it really hard for the pilot to accurately assess a targets location, direction, and size. Now I don't know (and can't be arsed to check) if the Tornado had such a canopy, but it probably did.
While you are correct in general. The F2 was not designed to eyeball fighters, it was designed to shoot down Russian bombers at long range.
Probably the most comprehensively researched and presented videos on the curvature of the earth that I have ever seen.
More to the point about the altitude of the Tornado, there is a difference between "service" and "absolute" ceiling. The Tornado can go much higher if you want to use afterburners (and have a very short flight)
LEO found a number that suited him so he stopped looking. Tracks perfectly.
Ya can't flerf is you're taking in the broader picture.
I’ve flown in Concorde, and at Mach 2.2, the sky outside was a very dark blue, and I could definitely and easily see the gentle curvature of the earth.
Thanks for showing the book, now being ordered😁
I own several Hasselbald cameras and have used them for a very long time. 80mm is roughly equivalent to 50mm on a 135 film camera. In other words, what is usually called normal optics.
Everyone running out to get that book. It looks like a wonderful book and some of those shots were just phenomenal. Thanks Dave.
when at 10:00 you were talking about someone on the internet selling a Tornado canopy, my mind - trained from watching Last Week Tonight with John Oliver - half expected you to say "and it appears someone bought it and shipped it to my studio". :D
5:00 - sorry to correct you here Dave, but the Tornado ADV wasn't intended primarily for air to air combat but for intercepting Soviet bombers. Doesn't change the altitude it could reach though: a max of about 70,000 ft.
Technically still air-air combat, just not an air superiority fighter
@@spaceraptor893 yeah it clasiffied as interceptor like Mig-31 and delta dagger
So how is "intercepting" not A2A combat? o.O
Thank you Adrian, and thanks Dave for the deep dive in this matter.
I hope LEO finds more nitpicks. These videos are great.
Since everything is a 'pantomime' for LEO, that means his 'expertise' is pantomime', also! Or should I say, "LEO is throwing us a curve."
That is a gorgeous photograph. What a beautiful plane Concorde was, and a real testament to what aerospace engineering is capable of.
So here, we can clearly see the difference between a flat earther researching and a normal person doing research.
If only one Flat Earther could give as much effort and attention to detail as you do. I would be amazed.
They wouldn't be flerfs.
Or stop being flerfs, like Ranty.
@@spiritwolf5792 True