Space Telescopes can't prove the moon landings or the globe ... and it wouldn't matter anyway!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 янв 2024
- 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
PATREON: / davemckeegan
Please consider supporting the channel by making purchases through my Amazon affiliates: geni.us/Affiliate
This video was sponsored by Brilliant
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Music by Bensound.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
#globe #science #flatearth #apollo #moonlanding 
Наука
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.
I can't put myself through watching your video, but using the logic of your title, we might have gone to the moon, but if we didn't, it doesn't matter. Congratulations, you have outdone yourself.
@@deanhall6045 Bravo - the 'it doesn't matter' was due to the video's conclusion that showing such proof from the telescopes wouldn't matter because people just ignore evidence anyway and stick to their desired conclusion ... Which you'd know if you didn't ignore the video because you want to stick to your predetermined conclusion #beautifulirony 😂
@@DaveMcKeegan that would be like Niel Armstrong telling you it's all fake, 75% wouldn't believe him ? Bravo.
@@deanhall6045 You're right I certainly wouldn't just take someone's word for it - I would want to see the evidence to back it up showing how they faked it all ... you know, that minor hurdle that conspiracy theorists continuously run away from
Although I have no idea what your next video will be about, I know it's going to be about icecream machines. And I know that you don't know anything about icecream machines, thus you know…wait, what are we talking about? I started to think about icecream for some reason and now I can't stop thinking about it. If only you'd made an iceream video, then I'd not have to go and buy icecream. Curse you, you icecream-hating photographer! ;P
Even if you took a moon landing denier to the moon and let them touch the Apollo artefacts, they'd still come back and say they were drugged or hypnotized
I'm looking forward to the day when space travel is cheap enough that some reality show holds a Flerfer intervention in low earth orbit.
@@MrJustinOtis which of course brings up the question how low earth orbit (or ANY orbit, for that matter) would be possible if the earth was flat.
@@MrJustinOtis the best part? At this point it is entirely possible to throw Dubay, Geranism, Bobert and Oakley on a ship and put their sorry ass's in orbit! Hell im sure we could get Pratt and laughing boy on board for a special needs discount! I dont for a second believe they'd admit they'd been wrong all these years but the mental gymnastics coupled with thier horseshit excuses would be..very...INTERESTING 🙃
@@MrJustinOtisIt will never be cheap- We live in a giant gravity well. Elon Musk has promised 100k mars rides that if you did the math on fuel alone make no sense and never will…
@@MrJustinOtisNow sub-orbital can be relatively cheap- 100-250k depending on balloon or jet.
But getting to the Karman line is millions- the rocket, fuel, logistics, insurance etc…
If Hubble did manage to photograph the descent stage, those same people would claim it was faked... some how.
CGI is the default option
of course. accepting reality would utterly destroy that idiotic religion that has poisoned their minds, reducing their IQs into the single-digit range
I'd be suprised if they would actually believe that hubble is in space...
@@ronmani9476 And who knows if its really is in space. Nobody.
@@MaxxJagX Yes. Most of the NASA images are post processed.
"Why won't they turn Hubble around to look at Earth?!"
"Is Hubble real?"
"No"
"Well, what the fuck do you want?!"
"space if fake and so do i"
same goes for jwst
I know right? Like playing chess with a chicken; it will strut about, poop on the board and claim it won. You just can't win...
No wait a second but there are sateloons so it might be that the satellites are up there but in the atmosphere, so pictures are real? Or fake? Dude it ls nowhere to go with them they are never wrong and going against the establishment with no actual reason
Flat Earthers aren’t a united collective, which would be completely fine if they’d stop acting like they are.
Flat Earthers will get on a livestream together and spend 3 hours reinforcing each other’s beliefs. Then, a week later, they’ve all posted videos that contradict those same peoples’ views.
And yet, people still use the term as if it refers to a singular idea.
Because of Flat Earthers, I’ve learned a lot about real physics, the heliocentric model, Earth’s atmosphere, photographs, telescopes, and how to debubk conspiracy theories. Thanks Dave!
When I hear someone asking “why can we see distant galaxies, but not the moon landing site?”, I usually reply “I don’t know, why can we see that mountain range hundreds of kilometres away, but not the pebble across the street?”
The answer I get is always a variation of “it’s not the same thing”, followed by some nonsensical ranting
Exactly. Its just a matter of scale. Which is why draughtsmen can do a small plan of a structure which can then be scaled up to the required size. It is clear that flat earthers have limited mental grasp of the actual scale of the Universe and objects within it. Imagining that for some reason all things should be of dimensions easily understandable by just them.
It would be cool to have a telescope designed to see the surface of the moon in great detail with extremely high zoom capabilities, though. Enough so we could see features small enough in scale, such as the landing sites. I suspect the actual image presented would have to be cleaned up with computer software or the development of a new telescope technology.
@@jgcalc I’m sure it would be cool, but it would also a huge waste of money. It would be the equivalent of buying a Lamborghini to go grocery shopping, using it once and then letting it sit in the garage untouched, forever
@@Between_Scylla_and_Kharybdis I don't know 1 day we might be so advanced that kind of technology seems outdated. it might be so small that a kid could hold it in their hand it could be so cheap that a parent gives it out as a party favor at their kids birthday party. heck, we don't know, maybe that technology exists right now. In a alien civilization so far away. little Timmy. The alien is playing in a sandbox holding his telescope. And it can see all the way to the surface of our planet. He might be seventy million light years away watching dinosaurs roam around while his friend puts sand down his diaper
To be fair, I also hear people (that believe in the moon landings) say, "If it was fake, the Soviet Union would have called NASA out" but can never tell you which soviet equipment would be able to monitor/verify a human moon landing. I'm pretty sure they imagine a giant Soviet telescope looking at the moon. (Space is not part of our natural world and I don't judge anyone too harshly on understanding anything out there.)
It seems rather disingenuous to say the least, to ask “why can’t you show us a picture from this thing?”, when countless better images have already been dismissed as fake.
but if we ask them to provide a single picture we get unintelligible screams
Probably because your answer of "It's impossible" is fuel for their arguments.
WHich of NASA's Earth Images do you claim are real? It's obvious you haven't done the work. Everyone who goes to verify this nonsense becomes a FE'er. GO verify you've been lied to and you can stop being a snarky douche about things you know almost nothing about.
My mate says he believes in the ice wall because he's seen a photo but, doesn't believe we've left earth even though we have photos.😂
I'm pulling him out of it, he spent 4 years travelling and came back believing all sorts of bollocks.
I'm sure you learned a lot in your bubble of confident self-assuredness in the meantime.@@DeliMeatTree
Forgetting Flat Earthers (which is not exactly hard), these vids are great for informing those of us who aren't completely bonkers but are interested in finding out more. Thanks Dave - another good one.
I love the way he explains things without resorting to insulting them or poking fun at them like so many others do. It's refreshing and you learn a lot more this way.
I've learned more about photography from Dave debunking flat earth than I ever would have in a photography class.
Yes
He’s the best
agreed. that's why Dave's one of my fav debunkers
This shows how massive some of the craters on the moon actually are.
Indeed. Scale is really hard to convey; astronomic and geologic scale more so.
And is shows just how monumentally large objects like nebula, gas clouds, etc. are.
@@taqresu5865 Fun fact; nebula means clouds. It really means the stuff we couldn't make out at the time, much like dark matter today.
And unlike Earth it shows how you can't really judge scale. A 100 mile wide crater looks very similar to a 100 foot wide crater. On Earth, trees, and other features can quickly give you a sense of scale.
@@0LoneTech Cool fact, but Dark Matter is practically impossible to detect with current equipment.
Besides NASA bothering with flat earthers would be an actual waste of public resources.
Oh, but flattards think NASA is a corporation.
NASA has enough trouble getting Congress and the public to be willing to give them enough resources for scientific exploration. Even now there are plenty of people that feel going back to the moon would be a waste of resources, just like plenty of people felt that way back then even by Apollo 13.
The Coles-Notes version: Using the space telescopes to do jobs they were not designed to do, to provide evidence for long-established scientific realities, with the goal of addressing the crackpot hypotheses of people who would never accept any evidence of said realities, no matter how convincing, is a waste of time and resources.
Superlative work, as always, Dave!
Very well said!
Exactly. Incredibly well said, Paul. These Flat-Earth wackjobs have no interest in empirical evidence whatsoever, otherwise, they would have willfully jumped off the Flat-Earth bandwagon a long time ago. They have their delusional minds set and there's simply no amount of evidence that can change them without them making a significant change to the way they interpret demonstrable evidence.
Especially since the James Webb works in infrared, if it points to the moon it's ruined, but they are so ignorant of these concepts that they don't even think about it.
True dat.
A succinct summary. You should write bumper stickers.
(It's easy to fit a stupid idea in 5 words on a bumper sticker but impossible to explain why it is stupid in 5 words.)
Flat earthers and space deniers: Goal post moving champions of forever.
You could send a flat earther to the moon and they would be claiming its flat along with a flat disk earth in the sky...they are actually incapable of comprehending the 3d shape of a sphere.
Ok then, just get ready for the fake alien invasion of 2030.
I like to call it the "quantum goal post" it's everywhere and no where all at the same time
@@K_End Schroedinger´s goal post
@@K_End Ahh, yes. The old Heisenberg law of flerfer goal posts: you can either know its momentary location or its speed of being moved. It will probably be somewhere else and unexpected next time you interact.
Another aspect of the Hubble imaging distant stars and galaxies is that this is done by using long exposure times. Hubble can spend weeks of accumulated time staring at one point in space in order to form an image.
That reminds of an early photograph of what looks like a deserted street. The exposure time was minutes and the people were moving too fast, except for a shoe shine boy and his customer.
@@sthurston2
Vsauce?
@@Zebo12345678 Louise Daguerre took a Daguerreotype photograph in 1838 of the view through his very high up window. The figure of a man is visible, albeit blurred, standing on the Boulevard du Temple, Paris. In 2010, the media reported that Gig Thurmond on his blog The Hokumburg Goombah, claimed it is the earliest known photo of a human.
I do not know what you mean by "Vsauce?". I am not Vsauce and my knowledge of the photo comes from learning some of the history of photography.
@sthurston2 Mmkay, fair enough. Vsauce is a very popular RUclips channel which covered that very photograph awhile back. I was curious if you learned of the photograph from that channel.
I'll ask the conspiracy theorists; why would NASA waste the extremely valuable and highly desired time on the Hubble to prove something they know is true? The conspiracy types seem to think NASA gives them an instants thought, but why would they? Got a real high opinion of themselves as they chatter and complain among themselves, but people doing the science have neither the time or interest to pander to a tiny group of people who will not take the time to prove their own theories. Keep explaining, as I love it as a lot of this is above my educational level.
You're arguing from the position that NASA is real. The denialists already insist that NASA exists only as part of some fantastic conspiracy, so anything they did would by definition only be trickery *and* the denialist would already know it. Humoring the denialist makes absolutely no sense in either scenario.
So true. That's their issue. They don't understand how insignificant they are in the grand scheme of things. We are small, earth is bigger than they can imagine
A common feature across all conspiracy theories is that they believe the majority agree with them but are just scared to speak out and that's where they get their confidence. After all their conspiracy involves mass government suppression of the truth so surely that must only be necessary because the majority actually agrees with them! This is also why they treat any criticism and responses from institutions as proof that they are right, in their mind this only happens as part of the suppression they believe is definitely happening. You can see how this worldview basically always leaves them in the right, if NASA or some other institution doesn't address their odd criticism then it means the evidence doesn't exist, if said institution does address them then it means the institution is scared (because apparently organizations can have feelings) and the “truth” is slowly spreading.
Maybe they should have collected together a fund to pay for wasting time and resources, then they could rent the Hubble for a day! 😂
Typically it goes to a flerf's Religious Mania conspiracy theory that 'they' are doing all of the CGI etc. in order to deny the existence of 'God'.
I conduct star parties in SW Texas. I have had happy instances of flat-earthers visiting occasionally for night sessions. I find it interesting that they REFUSE to look through the observatory-grade telescopes we use to look at the planets Jupiter and Saturn. One of them told me that they do not exist. So, I turned my back to this gentleman and said, "Since I don't see you, therefore, you don't exist either." He became very irate. RFLOL. Thank you for another excellent and detailed analysis!
Wtf are they doing there if they refuse to look through the telescopes?
@@robertlafleur5179They are there to argue with me that what I am presenting is wrong, for the Earth is flat.
@@williamramey1959 I guess you must have hours of fun with these ‘’geniuses’’, they might catch the thinking disease if they ever look in the telescopes.
You don't even need a particularly good telescope to see those planets. I can see both with my Celestron 70AZ and even make out details like the rings of Saturn and the bands of color on Jupiter. You can also see the moons of those planets orbit them over the course of a night.
@@hedgehog3180 One also can use a good set of Oberwerk's binnocular to see the rings of Saturn. However, with the observatory-grade scope, we see 4-8 moons of Saturn as well, including Titan, Rhea, Enceladus, Iapetus, Mimas, Enceladus, and Tethys. Of course, the bands of color of the planet are very visible through the telescope.
Hey guys, great news! One of the biggest flat earthers of Brazil (Leandro Batista), went to Norway to watch the Midnight Sun for himself and came back realizing the truth. He’s now an advocate against this conspiracy theory and the greatest thing is that a lot of people in his audience are coming to their senses as well. The world has a solution!!!
Who ever thought the midnight sun would be a red pill.
The Myth Busters crew was able to ping the lunar landing site with a laser and if you follow all their detailed steps, you can too.
Flerf: it's CGI, moves goalposts. It's CGI, moves goalposts. Rinse and repeat.
A lot like religious nutters and their God of the Gaps: "God did it!" Learn that it's physics (or chemistry, or biology), move goalposts, claim that "God did it." Rinse and repeat.
Dave you are the bomb at explaining things with simple analogies. "We can see the flashlight on the cellphone across a dark arena but not the cellphone." was brilliant. I often know how things work but cannot come up with a good analogy that clicks in the brain of someone who has neither the education or experience to accept my explanation.
So when Galileo Galilei discovered and showed Saturn's rings to his mates in 1610 he had access to C.G.I. Jeez, he really was ahead of the game. How did Hipparchus determine the distance to the moon using geometry if he was looking at C.G.I projected onto a much closer screen above a fluffers world?
What I personally find much more fascinating: the manufacturer of my cheap hobby telescope managed to build a pretty decent CGI system into that plastic tube with a (obviously fake) mirror inside, so that I can actually see Earth's moon, Jupiter's Galilean moons and Saturn exactly as described in those astronomy books. It has me completely fooled! Even better: it doesn't need any batteries! Now, one of those days I'll take it apart and find that computer.
@@KonradTheWizzard The cgi is actually built into the Moon - that's how the earth's shadow during a lunar eclipse is always made to look circular, no matter where in the sky the moon is.
@@jpdemer5 The firmament's actually got a built-in WQUXGA AMOLED 360hz curved display with Google Assistant. If you scream loud enough you might be able to ask it the weather.
@@a_plastic_bag I just hope no one asks it to turn off the lights.
@@homiedclown I hope they installed a quality HDMI cable, and not one of those Amazon $4.99 specials.
One of the best Flearfer call outs was made in the last months of '23 - a fully fledged pilot with connections offered to organise a Boeing 747 charter to fly right across Antarctica - any takers would have to get themselves to South America and return - the flight would be about 16 hours over the Ice Wall and land in Australia - $1.5mill but divided by 350/400 well within reach of these supposed Millionaire deniers. No one has called yet.
There are commercially available cruises and expeditions to antarctica- I once pointed this out to one on another debunker channel during the livestream and soon after there was an announcement about a flat earth expedition which has quietly disappeared. Probably couldn't manage the funding for that either lol
Yes, and he's puzzled by the lack of takers considering how keen they claim to be about doing your own research.
That was Kelsey wasn't it?
The fact is, you simply can't argue with someone who can play the "All evidence that refutes my claim is fake" card. I mean these are people that think NASA invented the greatest video effects software in history - software capable of rendering real-time HD video of the surface of the Earth with accurate ground and weather conditions (all without satellites to tell them what those conditions are) - to fake a live ISS feed, since they weren't capable of using rocket technology invented by the Chinese hundreds of years ago to put a can with a camera on the side in orbit.
When you say it like that it Sounds even more ridiculous than Flerfs and space deniers usually do😂
@ctsean I just love what you wrote - "rocket technology invented by the Chinese hundreds of years ago to put a can with a camera on the side in orbit" - I give Talks to groups on a wide variety of subjects and often point out that there isn't much "rocket science" in rocket science - once the venturi and a bit of chemistry was sorted out - the rest is engineering, pretty amazing engineering but no quantum jumps involved. I shall use your quote and give you a credit as "some guy on the Interweb" O.K.?
@@alanclark639I know it's pedantic, but the rocket tech used wasn't invented by the Chinese. It was invented by German scientists. A large vacuum flask with two gases combined, set light to it and wooosh. The wooosh part is crucial😊.
@@steveb6386 If you want to be pedantic - so can I. The German rocket propulsion system involved liquid oxygen and ethanol (another liquid) - and besides the amazing engineering - did not introduce any new Science! The Chinese realised the need for a venturi - which IS a scientific concept.
@@alanclark639 So the Chines realized the need "a venturi", but they just decided to sit around and wait for hundreds of years for Venturi to actually come up with it? I don't know, bro, sounds kind of fishy🤔
Why would Flerfs believe a Hubble or JWST photo of Earth when they don't believe other photos of Earth or even live footage from satellites?
The funniest thing is that if Hubble was able to photograph the moon landing site, the flerfers would just say the photo was fake. No one will ever produce a photograph that wakes a flerfer up from their delusions.
I’m past hoping that flat earthers will see excellent content like this and change their minds. Telling the truth is intrinsically valuable. Few do it better.
Most of the ones that have managed to build a career out of Flerfing aren't going to admit they're wrong, because that would require them to give up their grift and go find a real job.
Also, the trolls who espouse flerf ideas won't give it up, not because they believe flerf is real, but because they love trolling the critics and the rest of the flerf community at the same time.
As for the rest of the true believers, most of them are just mentally ill.
That would be the ideal. On the other hand, it would also be worth it if Dave can help keep people from falling down the conspiracy rabbit holes.
Unlikely, they can't even band together to actually check out the north pole, or go around the globe to validate their ice wall theory.
@MaxxJagX cause it would prove them wrong. Some that did go and see nothing, even went to say we have a pac man effect. We go into a invisible portal that takes us to the other side of the planet..... they can't give it up that they're wrong. They will keep coming up with excuses, no matter how much evidence shows they're wrong.
Another denial is that Australia doesn't even exist.
@@MrJustinOtis I think you're actually right! I had an encounter (in the comments somewhere else) with a troll who brought up nonsense galore pretending "sitting on the fence", jumping around and just dismissing everything contradicting this nonsense. He (it was a he for sure) did so in several directions at once, and much of it looked either like c&p, or some easy to wright few words. It was quite a show, and it was clear that he didn't give any thought to what was presented on either side (just "but … says, and how do I know that they're wrong" and the like). The latter arguments resembled those who seem to actually believe it, but those tend to stick to a much smaller portion of arguments (you can discern the religious types from the even more stupid ones). And the upper echelons have started to radiate intelligent sounding nonsense that must be clear to be nonsense even to them (but not their followers).
Even if you could somehow get the pictures they requested, they would still just boldly claim its CGI.
They do not realise that even photos they take with their phone are CGI, "they have to be"! lol
@@j.tann1970 Don't tell them! They will lose all connection to reality (as strenuous as it is at this time) and their heads will explode. I don't mind that much, but the cleanup would be horrifying.
Trying to take a photo of the Earth with the Webb or Hubble is like trying to take portrait shots with my 200-500mm lens with a subject standing only... 10 ft away.
(in case there are flerfs who do not know what a 200-500 mm lens is). How about using binoculars to read a book that is laying on your lap. Assuming binoculars (and your 500 mm lens) even can focus on such a short distance.
Not only that, but "you're running past the subject at several 1000k's an hour" (as Hubble isn't geostationary, as it's not intended to photograph Earth)
@@Yehan-xt7cw Hey dum-dum, it's called a binocular. It's singular, not "binoculars" like you keep calling it. You don't ride a bicycles do you?🤭
@@Rick-the-Swift First google _binocular_ then _binoculars._ See which has the most results.
(hint: it's not your version)
@@Rick-the-Swifthey dum-dum, sometimes words have more than one correct spelling 🤭
Ask them to read a small print book using binoculars then ask them why they can't?..... 😂
That's actually a good one👍
Some of them would struggle to read a book held at a normal distance.
www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/pia01541-crater-copernicus ... after corrective lenses ... before them it had 1m resolution at the moon ..
as for the binocular analogy ... make it a 2 inch telescope with 256 different colour spectrum analyzers and a combinatory algorithm to refine detail and then using all that data generate an image and I will read he fine print of the eye exam test page ...
Hubble aint a camera .... it is a spectrum analyzer rig that combines over 256 data points for every pixel and then using all available data generates a false image ...
you missed that important fact .... HIGHLY important actually ... hubble has never taken a single picture in its life ... it generates them from over 256 sensors and some software to make false images ... the returned data .. has the false image and then all the data that was collected and what setting the algorithm used to create the image from the raw data ... it send roughly 300 different data sets to make that one picture
Another top-notch video. Thanks, Dave!
Flerfs are so irrelevant now, but your content is so much more than a debunking channel.
You generally start from a common misunderstanding (usually held by conspiracy theorists) as your basic premise, and the video blossoms organically into something fresh and vibrant. You have a down-to-earth delivery style, and I often learn something new with each video.
You obviously put lots of time and energy into your final product, yet it feels polished and effortless. Unlike many content creators - particularly Flerfs - your tone is measured and there is no desire to mock the dimwits who wilfully splash their nonsense all over YT.
As always, looking forward to your next upload. Brilliant stuff!
I showed some visitors to Utah from New Zealand a few things in my telescope the other night. And guess what? When Orion rose over the mountain we were just west of, they all confirmed it was in the opposite orientation on the sky from how it appears at home. Huh. The earth is a globe! Simple as that.
The Webb scope would take a lot more than a few days to cool back down after pointing at earth, BTW. And it would definitely burn up the detectors.
It's more of a psychological question than a technical one, if you don't think NASA or the handful of other countries that have sent probes to the moon and have shown multiple images of all of the Apollo landing sites are being truthful, why would the level of suspicion/paranoia be so high? Is it reasonable to say that they went to the moon and several other countries back up this fact with pictures of their own? Is it unreasonable to dismiss evidence from several independent sources, some of which are rival governments?
I suspect it's also related to the fact that the public's trust in government officials is at an all time low. Regardless of your political persuasion, we've all seen examples where the government has lied, cheated, or covered up the truth, and as trust in government falters (rightly or wrongly), people become more willing to simply dismiss any official source of information immediately.
These are the same idiots that think refraction can't explain why we can see the top part of buildings that should be below the horizon by a thousand feet or so based on their distance, but CAN explain why a sun that supposedly circles overhead by 2000 to 3000 MILES above the Earth can somehow appear to sink below the horizon.
These people are intentionally ignorant. One thing you can't save someone from, is themselves.
There isn’t any evidence against the fact that we landed on the moon. It’s just bullshit from people that don’t understand what they are looking at who just want to make a buck off of other scientifically illiterate people.
@cryptojihadi265 same people who say "nasa forgot to cgi xyz from that video" (usually something obvious that they can't understand) but then can't explain perfectly matched weather patterns from the ISS 😂 so good they can match weather. But so bad they "forgot the stars" 😂😂😂
And most of them are americans. It blows my mind how they act so dumb trying to hurt one of the greatest achievements of their own country/people
You can lead a flat earther to water, but they will unalive from dehydration thinking that the water was cgi
If flat earthers only understood photography, their numbers would quickly dwindle.
Interesting
Not only photgraphy, but SCALE, and it is their primary issue. They simply don't understand scale. they think the earth must have a diameter of less than 500 miles, the way they are talking. The earth, although a microscopic object compared to bigger stuff like stars, but the earth is big, incredibly big. And our brain are not inherently made to visualize something that big, it's just impossible. But, for "normal" people, we're still able to understand the general scope of it.
If ballers understood real science this conversation would be pointless.
@@CheckmateSurvivoryou gotta be trolling 😂
Nikon 900 Flerf camera of choice to prove a globe
They take a lot pics😂
The argument that drives me crazy is "thats an image, not a photograph".
Like, what do you want? You want it to take a polaroid snap and rocket it back to Earth?
They use "image" as a pejorative and its so weird.
The Apollo and Gemini missions were on film. They don't believe those either.
Flerfer: Why don't you use a spatula to cut a steak?
Normal people: Because I have a knife for this job...
Flerfer: You're in NASA's conspiracy scham!
Converting kilometers to meters? Watch Nathan Oakley's head explode.
McKeegen takes an insult from the less intelligent and turns it into an opportunity to enlighten them, without backward insult. Amazing
The real problem is that no matter what evidence you provide, they will always say it is fake. You cannot use truth to overcome delusion.
You could blast them into space, into orbit... but they will create excuses to explain away the round earth in front of them. I.E. windows are fish eye lenses, windows are actually screens, I've been drugged. Anything to preserve their belief and not be wrong.
there actually are Hubble-class scopes pointing at earth, we just call them "spy satellites," and as you demonstrated they give a narrow, but highly detailed view of the surface.
Funny thing about that. Hubble may or may not share a common ancestor with those electro-optical satellites that may or may not be in orbit at the time it originally launched....food for thought...
Not really may or may not. It's chassis is known surplus Keyhole satellite - it's speculated to have been a KH-11 specifically but it's not a secret that it was something from that series. The Nancy Grace Roman telescope is based on a newer version of the same series of spy satellite, and NASA has one more chassis in storage.
But it's important to mention Hubble and NGR only use the physical chassis of a Keyhole and aren't actually Keyhole themselves. NASA received them as an empty frame. All the functional parts, like optics, guidance, propulsion, power, and communications are NASA developed technologies intended to fulfill a very different job than the KH-11 itself.
So just like you can't point Hubble at the Earth and get anything of reconnaissance value, you can't point a KH-11 into deep space and get anything of scientific value.
It's kind of like being given a Cadillac and customizing it into an El Camino. Still the same frame and if you park then together you can tell they used to be the same car, but they're both now built for such different jobs that neither one can do what the other does anymore.
@@alexdhall What?
@@Hevach Hubble a surplus KH satellite? no.
The Nancy Grace Roman telescope uses a *mirror assembly* donated by the NRO. Hubble's mirror is unique. When Hubble was designed, reconnaissance satellites were already using 2.4 meter mirrors. However, NASA commissioned Perkin-Elmer to do the Hubble mirror, and Perkin-Elmer had never made a 2.4 m mirror. They had made smaller mirrors for earlier-generation reconnaissance satellites. If they had made a 2.4 m mirror before, the error they made when measuring the mirror during the grinding process would have been found earlier.
- Hubble's instruments have nothing in common with spy satellites. Those are designed to look at daytime Earth, with a secondary capability for IR imaging. Hubble's sensors had to be far more sensitive, to pick up tiny amounts of starlight.
- Hubble's control system has nothing in common with spy satellites. Hubble is designed to stare at a stationary target for hours or days. Spy satellites have to stare at moving targets for a few minutes at most, when those targets disappear over the horizon. So spy satellites must be able to rotate quickly to keep their targets in sight, while Hubble has to rotate very slowly but accurately to keep its targets in sight.
- Spy satellites use rocket thrusters. They can change orbit. Hubble has no thrusters, as they did not want thruster exhaust to condense on the mirrors.
So, the mirror diameter is the same, and the general dimensions are the same (both dictated by the size of the Space Shuttle payload bay), but pretty much nothing else.
@@alexdhallthey were adapted from the same mirror size.
Discovered this channel recently. You are doing several great jobs 😊
1 You educate your dog ❤
2 You inform us about so many space related subjects
3 I don't discuss with flat earthers and/or moonlanding deniers. I tell them to watch your channel.
At this point his dog is more educated than any flerf.
Pre-watching guess was that hubble can't 'pan' effectively enough to keep the moon in focus. Same with pointing Hubble towards earth. The rotation would have clouds/ land masses moving and blurring the images. And I knew that Webb would 'burn out' pointing towards the earth/ sun since it's an infrared camera designed to look in the cold cold space.
Post-watching, tsk... I was wrong, but those pesky physics and 8th grade level math keep getting in the way of flerfers. lol
Great explanation Dave, as always.
The tracking (rotation) capacities of Hubble are the other problem. If I understand that correctly it can track the moon when done manually but not automatically - that's why we have moon pictures of Hubble. But for the question in this video... even if Hubble could perfectly track the moon the resolution would not be high enough for imaging the landing sites. That's I believe why Dave focused on that part.
You are completely correct about the Earth though, the gyroscopes Hubble uses to rotate can't keep up with the orbital speed of the telescope so it can't keep itself looking at a single target on Earth for long enough to get an exposure. However Hubble likely has a lot in common with US spy sattellites of the era so there is a sister to Hubble out there that looks solely at Earth.
8th grade level math? Many of them fail kindergarten level math...
On JWST from what I remember even when it was tightly folded they still had to avoid sunlight hitting it at some angles to not break it
I remember last summer getting into a Facebook discussion with a flerf. I did what I always do, and asked her for an accurate FE map. Instead of changing the subject and deflecting the way that most of them do, she just said, "There are accurate FE maps, but you'd never accept them, so there's no point". My response to this was the same: "So, in other words you have no map". We went back and forth for several posts before she finally deleted all her comments and stopped responding. I never did get a map.
please debunk a guy called "don't sphere the truth"
That is on my to-do list
that's sick! thank you. @@DaveMcKeegan
He has nothing to fear but sphere itself. 🥸
@DaveMcKeegan Ask them to read a small print book using binoculars then ask them why they can't?..... 😂
Seasons don't sphere the reaper.
4:57 lmao so they HAVE photographed the site, but these idiots just call it “cartoons/CGI”. Like why do they even ask for Hubble to do it too?? They’ll just call it CGI as well😂
Yes, people like these will always move the goalposts. It doesn't matter how much proof you give them, they always cry foul and demand more.
They make demands knowing full well they are just going to call it fake. They have no integrity.
@@AfonsoCL... and conveniently forget the evidence you already provided within minutes. This is how their "there's no evidence" mantras continue.
They don't believe that orbiting telescopes can even exist, yet they want to point a "non-existent" 'scope at the moon.
@@KSparks80 You give them what they pretend that they want, even if not really done to please them, all they do is cry fake. So they really don’t want that to be done as they know they are just going to reject it.
Why would NASA point Hubble at earth to prove something that has been proven for thousands of years. Sounds like a waste of money.
And photos of earth from satellites date back to the 1940s way before photoshop or cgi.
@@nunya_bizniz it's quite amazing how flerfers and hoaxers both wildly overestimate AND underestimate technology at the same time.
Don't we have a reflector on the moon? We can point lasers at it and it bounces back. How'd it get up there???
You're asking to much of them.
Yes, the Apollo 11, 14 & 15 left retroreflectors. However, the Soviets had retroreflectors mounted on top of the two unmanned Lunokhod rovers they landed on the moon in 1970 & 1973. I have no doubts about the authenticity of the Apollo missions but the retroreflectors they left behind has also been done with unmanned missions. That includes the Chandrayaan-3 mission that landed in 2023 with a retroreflector supplied by NASA installed on top of it.
@@mako88sb this still debunks flat earth though. As we can precisely measure the distance to the moon.
@@draco2k729 Sure, but as Dave points out, the problem isn't debunking flat earth, it is providing information that won't just be denied as well.
@@draco2k729 Yes, but most reasonable people with the appropriate critical thinking skills would realize the flat Earth theory doesn’t make any sense. Yet they have no problem at all ignoring practical realities and dreaming up ridiculous theories to support their arguments. Just google how they explain the 4 seasons work on the flat Earth model. Pretty crazy.
Because NOWWWW, they'll FINALLY believe a picture we took from space.
Yeah, right!
I really appreciate how you're always able to put these massive numbers into perspective. For example, your example of being on a plane and attempting to locate something like a thumb tack on the ground. Great video as always!
If you learn scientific notation you'll be able to do that with relative ease as well.
@@hedgehog3180 nice yea we should definitely try to berate the intelligence of strangers on the internet
@@hedgehog3180 Scientific notation doesn't automatically put things into perspective. For example, I can say that something is 5.714*10^17 km away. Because I know scientific notation, I know that that's 57,140,000 km. But this still doesn't give me perspective and let me visualise what sort of distance that is. Our brain often simply can't visualise such large scales (it never evolved to do so).
@@a_plastic_bag This is so important to keep in mind - one thing about the pandemic was the complete inability of many to judge probabilities, which is just another case of not being able to put numbers into perspective.
Well that and exponential growth is not intuitive either. People consistently underestimate just how quickly small numbers become big that way. They also consistently overestimate how large the numbers need to get before there is just no hope of controlling things anymore for the same reason.
You got it right at the end Dave. It takes less than 10 seconds to locate publicly accessible satellite imagery that is well optimized to viewing the earth, but I can guarantee the flerfers disregard every single one of them. Heck, you can watch satellite launch live streams on multiple separate RUclips channels, often live, see the curve of the earth as the rocket climbs, and still... deny, deny, deny.
Ah well, they give you great video ideas for those of us that enjoy the science behind it.
Let me save somebody a few of those seconds: EPIC DSCOVR and Himawari show grand imagery of the frequent "full disc" variety.
If the earth is flat, how come no one who’s gone up there has said it is? Imagine how much money they would make
The truly hysterical comment "It's CGI..." forgets that these images were created in 1968... There was no CGI. There were no computers powerful enough to generate any kind of image. There were only huge calculating main frames. Nearly all the results of all computing got printed to paper. No CGI. Remember what was available at the time... A recent head to head competition was just done. The world's first supercomputer the CRAY-1 made in 1972 vs a late model Raspberry Pi SBC.
The Cray weighed in at 10 tons, the Pi tips the scale at just over 1.5 oz. The Cray cost $10,000,000, the Pi $150. The Cray consumed 115 Kilowatts of electric power to run, the Pi less than 10 watts.
So all of that being the case, the Pi is 95 times faster, that hobbyist, homebrew, single board computer for makers. 95 times faster than the fastest computer in the world in 1972, 4 years after the first moon landing.
So when flat earthers say it was CGI, no, it was all analog video taken and photographs shot on a Hasselblad medium format camera. There was no digital media data from the Apollo Missions. NASA still has the tape and the original photos.
Why can't the Hubble prove the Earth is a globe?
Same reason you can't read a page of text while pressing the paper directly against your eyeball.
Actually, I suspect the Hubble's orientation system alone could show the Earth is a globe, because that's what fits inside the keep out region (where the Hubble can't go and won't get useful imagery). Like any other low earth orbit.
Earth has a radius of about 6.4Mm, and Hubble orbits it at an altitude of around 0.5Mm. This orbit would be literally impossible to fit any object bigger than 14Mm in, and any great circle around the Earth is about 40Mm (even Columbus' mistaken estimates would require around 30Mm). There are over 5000 of these satellites in Starlink alone. GPS, Galileo, Iridium, BeiDou and GLONASS each provide this information fairly directly; you can get the map of where in the sky each satellite you can detect is and cover them up as an experiment.
@@0LoneTech Oh, good point. I guess planetary curvature is large enough that focal detail isn't necessarily needed.
If one steps back and looks at their request & logic its baffles me..
they ask for something WE already know they will deny..
That’s what they always do. They want us to fetch them an imaginary ball that they are tossing to waste everyone’s time. They also think everything has to be bout them so make demands as if the rest of us are required to complete.
Taking it one step further, they ask us to prove something we've already proven and we already know they'll deny.
Always my favorite things flerfs post. “Why doesn’t NASA take a picture of upside boats?!” When they would immediately call any photo of upside boats “fake CGI”
Someone did it the other day on FB, just rotated a photo of a ship 180 degrees!
Well done, and informative as always.
If flat earthers want pics taken from the moon that show people on earth, we will send the telescope up to the moon as soon they have build it on earth. 🙂
First problem, the curvature and size of the main mirror, they would not get over that ever.
I will be honest: I think these types of videos are the best way to explain science and astronomy. I've been binge watching for the past week and they are so informative! They grab assumptions from people who know nothing about the world and view it as a child does (in this case: "why doesn't the telescope just zoom in on the moon"), and explain them in detail in an easy to understand way while still being technical. They grab every notion you could conjure and promptly defy it. I have learned more from these videos than at school when I was younger. Thank you Dave!
They would also never accept a JWST infrared image of the Earth that looks nothing like a visible light image of Earth even if it was in false colour. Pointing jwst at Earth, a good way to destroy its sensitive IR sensors.
also at L2, earth appears large for jwst narrow field of view.
@@SaneGuyFr There's already an Earth-observation satellite at that point. AND one in geostationary orbit. AND weather satellites ...
@@RideAcrossTheRiver ikr
About seeing a point of light further away than the object itself:
Today after my doctor's appointment I saw a bright light in the sky hovering overhead. I stared at it and was like "that is strange, is that a UFO?" I watched it for a while and it vanished. Took out a pair of binoculars and looked at where it was and saw a very faint contrail high in the sky, slowly moving.
What I'm 99% confident I saw was a high altitude jet reflecting the light of the morning sun in such a way that it caused an instinctual alarm to me. It was so bright, yet so far away it looked stationary.
So I found it quite interesting that the visibility of points of light were brought up today.
If you go out early in the night and look in the direction the sun set in then you'll often be able to see sattellites reflecting light from the sun. This is likely the cause of most UFO reports since they move incredibly fast and no one is really expecting to be able to see objects that are orbiting in space. They are also a lot brighter than you'd expect so you can even see them inside of suburban areas. The ISS is particularly easy to spot since its size makes it very bright and with a good telescope you can even take pictures of it where you can see details.
Of you can also do the opposite and go outside early in the morning and look in the direction where the sun wil rise from.
It would be worthless to do all that. One of the things they say about the moon landing is why didn't we go back? Well we will be back in a couple years. Will that shut them up? Nope.
Flerfers, no, but other deniers will probably split into factions: this one's real, not the other one, China really did it, the US didn't, vice versa, etc etc....
They think Hubble uses a P1000 😂😂😂
Randal Monroe of xkcd did a “What If?” On pointing Hubble at the ground. The result would be a very motion blurred image because Hubble is moving over the ground at 7 kilometres a second, and wasn’t designed to take pictures with fast shutter speeds. (Typical exposure time for most Hubble images is around half an hour.)
I prefer his moon landing explanation: "If NASA were willing to fake great accomplishments, it would have a second one by now"
I was a moon landing skeptic before but you successfully convinced me it happened. Well done
It’s rare for people who think it’s fake to actually listen to the other side and consider it. You deserve credit for actually listening
@@peeperleviathan2839 There have been continuously published studies on the lunar sample return since 1970. How can people not know this?
@@peeperleviathan2839 thanks
All of the math in this video can be done without having taken a day of algebra 1, and all of relevant information about telescope orbit distances and fields of view is readily available on the interwebs.
Wish I could find some sighs
They’ll never accept anything that doesn’t align with their narrative.
You are producing by far the best content regarding photography while debunking these nutcakes. I'm well aware of the limitations of aforementioned telscopes, but you are explaining and detailing it to really a classbook/enciclopedia extent.
also, nobody will waste working time of those telescopes to prove some lunatics that earth is a sphere.
i just have one question to flat earthers: why would nasa fake it, i mean, what would they benefit from that, why would they spend billions of dollars to fake smth like this?
It's all about "the lie". If the denialist had nothing to be offended about, they'd be revealed to be a fool, and that's absolutely unacceptable. The only possible outcome is that anyone who dares to argue with the denialist is in on the conspiracy.
I dunno. God?
@@LineOfThy Satan, actually.
For the religiously inclined deniers, the Bible indicates the Earth is flat, especially when you get to Revelations with the various end of the world events being visible to the whole world at once which would be possible on a flat earth, but not a sphere (ignoring that things like stars aren't visible everywhere at once) but even if we assume that such descriptions are to be literally happening, rather than a metaphor, its talking about how reality itself is coming apart at the seams and an omnipotent God doing impossible things. If anyone can appear so that the whole world sees Him at once, its God.
But getting back to the argument at hand, the Bible indicates that the Earth is flat, so all of the world's governments and educated figures are spending all of this time and treasure on pure theater to make people think the Earth is a Globe, because thinking that means that you don't believe the Bible. Not believing the Bible is a go directly to Hell, do not pass the Pearly Gates, do not collect 200 halos. everything else you've done or believed is irrelevant. Its the word of God, you doubt the word of God, so you doubt God. You lose! Good day, Sir!
And why are they doing this? Because Satan told them that if they do so, they'll be rewarded when they die. But since he is the Prince of a Lies, they'll be tortured just the same as everyone else. Either way Satan wins.
For the non-religious reason for all of it, its because they're busy getting off on how they're fooling everyone and that makes them wealthy beyond all reason since now they have all of those secret resources on the other side of the ice wall that no one knows about, and that they themselves can never use.
Another great video, keep them coming as they are very informative.
Idiots will Idiot. Nothing said or done will change their minds. I enjoyed the video. Thanks
Asking NASA to prove the earth is a globe is like asking Delta Airlines to prove that powered flight is real. Why would they waste time and money to do that?
Guess none of these people making claims of CGI from all the satellites and such have never actually looked at a planet with a telescope of their own with their own eyes. I've seen the spot of Jupiter and the rings of Saturn with my own telescope, and they look a lot like the pics otherwise shown.
Great video as usual. What a shame you didnt put picture from the indian probe Chandrayaan-2 which took photographs of Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites. Comparing the images with LRO’s it shows the same terrain, foot paths, instruments, descent stages.
Which goes to show, you can bring a Flat Earther to the evidence, but you can't make them think.
Flerfs: "Do your research!"
Dave: "Here's the math and some info about how lenses work. Also, a lot of relevant data and some demonstrations with Photoshop."
Flerfs: "You used Photoshop, so that proves it's all fake!" (probably)
"Why wouldn't you point Hubble at the moon?" Because that would be like trying to watch TV with a telescope.
"Why don't you point space telescopes at Earth?" Because they're expensive pieces of equipment with limited lifespans and a high demand to do real science instead of attempting to prove the bleeding obvious. And even if someone actually did point a space telescope at Earth, you guys would just declare it fake anyway.
You could fly some of these conspiracy theorists to the actual Moon and they'd still say it was some elaborate government simulation.
Flerfs can't scale nor would they if they could.
As soon as you try to use arithmetic to make a point, the flat earthed just “zone out”.
It’s pointless to try.
‘A soon as you try -to use arithmetic- to make a point, the flat Earthers just “zone out”. It’s pointless to try.’
^Still true!
The other thing to mention about telescopes that can see galaxies and stars millions of lightyears away is that, although they can see these things, each pixel of the image is potentially representing hundreds of thousands or even millions of miles, so its resolution just isn't high enough to isolate such small objects on the moon's surface.
You’re definitely at your best when you apply your photography expertise to debunk flat earthers…love your stuff
Always learn something watching this channel. And never forget to read through the comments. Some are comedy gold always.
12:10 Their ultimate defense against reality is that it's all Cee Gee Eye.
Thank you Creeky :-)
And yet they think their personal photos taken with their phones are not CGI! To take that quote they love from the NASA artist: "of course they're CGI, they have to be!" 🤣🤣
You’re doing an amazing job of attempting to educate those who refuse to be educated. You teach all the rest of us so much in the process! Being old enough to have watched the moon landings live on TV, I’ve had a lifelong fascination with NASA and space travel. I love seeing all this information you’ve gathered about the equipment left on the moon.
Plus, you’re simply delightful to watch!
Be honest, you and he both know he's not helping anyone go from believing in a flat earth to believing in a globe earth. His audience simply gets a kick out of making fun of flat earthers, and he enjoys the attention he gets for being a smarty pants.
@@Rick-the-Swift Be honest, you haven't watched any of his videos.
@@knieperkohl Actually I'm making a documentary video in which I'm featuring at least one of his videos. Not sure why you think I'd just show up here to comment, especially when my assessment was spot on.
Or do you seriously believe that he or his audience entertain any fantasies that he's actually helping to "educate" flat earthers?
Let me know if you'd like to do a skype interview sometime and discuss more in depth. Take care.
@@Rick-the-Swift What's your point exactly? Nobody should reply to flat earthers claims, cause that makes you a smartass? I have watched other debunking channels but stopped because they were rude and mocking, but Dave is quite respectful. There is the occasional quib but that's okay. And his videos are well researched and nicely presented. I learn alot from watching them. And I hope he enjoys the attention he gets. Why shouldn't he, it's well deserved.
I don't know if any flat earthers or moon landing deniers will be convinced by his videos. Probably not many. But maybe some of those that are on the fence. And even if not, so what? Doesn't change the fact that his videos are intresting and informative even if you don't belong to those groups. If nothing else they provide some intresting questions.
So no, you're not spot on. You're way off.
Crazy, but when showing the wonders of the southern sky with my 10” 4.5 Dob, no one has asked: “hey, have you tried to check out your neighbour’s bathroom?”
Man I love how you break everything down and make it easy for anyone to understand. Anyone except flat earthers, that is. They can’t understand how a toaster makes toast.
Bringing up either James Webb or Hubble sounds painful and damaging to the oesophagus. Bringing them both up could rupture something. You shouldn't be swallowing large pieces of scientific equipment anyway.
It's preferable to the alternative route out 😳
OUCH!@@DaveMcKeegan
Take a picture of your whole house while touching the front door
These are the same people that deny the ISS is real even though they can see it with there own telescopes for them selves and take photographs of it and still say its fake....
6:55 nice job lining up all those images
As always Dave a excellent well researched video. Without doubt the best debunker when it comes to detail.
Wow!! That was absolutely fascinating. I never would have thought that any of the telescopes weren’t able to show said images!
Fun fact, the images of Apollo 11 moon landing was broadcasted to Tidbinbilla radio telescope (ACT- Australia) for the first 8 or so minutes before being switched over to "The Dish" in parks (NSW- Australia) for the best images yet. Also, that thing is supposed to be stowed at wind speeds of like 25km/h or faster and on the day of the moon landing the wind was going at over 100km/h (they decided that this was a BIG deal and it was worth the risk- cause that thing Isn't even bolted down- it just sits there)
Put a flerf in a rocket and have him look outside. He either confirms "oh, the earth is round after all", or he'll claim he's in a simulator. If he tells other flerfs what he saw, they'll claim he was brainwashed.
It's not just stupidity. It's blindness for the beautiful truth that's the globe, and deafness to anybody who cares enough to talk sense to them.
Funniest thing about flat earthers is that they have an ego big enough to think NASA should be spending their time and resources proving to them that Earth is a globe.
They also give a lot of credit to NASA, by assuming the rest of the worlds governments are happy to maintain the lies of a single countries space agency. Even fucking North Korea have put things in space, you'd think THEY would be first in line to debunk American achievements in space
Happy New Year Dave and thanks for yet another outstanding presentation.
Please debunk Arwijn. "Gas has no mass or weight". "Light has no speed" etc. 🤣😝
Arwijn is obviously not a welder.
“Mass or weight” reveals that he doesn't know what either of those are.
Easy to prove, buy a gas cylinder, weigh it, empty it, weigh it. Gas most certainly has mass/weight.
@@thegrumpyoldmechanic6245
Not a Commercial Diver either or he would no longer be among the living.
We literally measured the speed of light (approximately) in high school using a microwave and a bar of chocolate. This guy's a clown
The overlaying of photos for scale is great work. I wish scale was more often made that easy to understand.
“Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed.”
― C.S. Lewis
Flat Earthers - Because even creationists need someone to make fun of. 😀
The gostationary weather satellites show the round earth all the time.
Again, another great video, explaining to us laypeople how stuff can't be used in ways that science deniers wouldn't accept anyway. It's funny how these people are perfectly happy using tools that only science could've brought to them, while simultaneously dismissing science as whole.
The hypocrisy and denial is astounding.