Debunking Flat Earth Memes: Compilation Episode 

And fairly blocky at only 16mp.

Hence why it's usually considered a "photo" when taken with a film camera but it's called an "image" if taken with a digital camera. What really gets me is that I can't understand what makes the P900/1000 the GOAT of cameras to these flerfs when there are so many better cameras available (digital or otherwise).

@@goldenknight578 They're assembled in an underground temple by templars who've sworn to end freemasonry.

you just elucidated the case against RADAR images of UFOs. every one a load of crap.

Sorry Superman, the sun is white anyway so your meme is doubly debunked At least you know cameras have processors to enhance the image, & unlike the average event punter can probably discriminate between a camera, the human eye, and a stage laser, a lab laser, & the sun...

Such a good meme. Real shame that Glinner destroyed his life and career with his obsession.

Yes The Father Ted clip was needed for that one I think.

Remember when Doogle was considered so stupid nobody irl could exist like him?

Honestly Doogle would make a perfect flerfer.

@@ianjardine7324 well it's established in the show his concept of reality and fiction are flipped, so you're definitely correct

Exactly, They forgot about the salad bowl.

And we would all be dead as well with no oxygen. lol

Who changes the batteries in their "Flashlight Sun" anyhow?

@@drshoe8744 The Hogfather.

Also oxygen is limited the higher you go so the sun if it was rotating above and only burning would quickly go out. It's cold up there too!

Everybody knows it's a pair of hamsters! Gerbil - for shame! Stop spreading gerbilistic lies!

@@timolynch149 Gerbilphobe!!!!!?!

This theory was debunked in the late 20th century by NASA on its mission to the dark side of the Sun where they discovered two Boy Scouts vigorously rubbing two sticks together.

No no no you heathens godless heathens it's clearly Helios. Y'all need the oricles 😂😆😂😆 (He says secretly hoping this keeps going)

@@MadHax-wt5tl Anti-Hamsterist!

Right, that dome would make C02 build up and render the Earth uninhabitable! Oh, wait. Poor argument. Never mind!

Fourth Law of Flerf: A flerf explanation for their pancake fantasy will always contradict another explanation for their pancake fantasy. No exceptions.

That's what had me confused when I first saw it I thought it was a debunking meme showing how their sun inside the dome wouldn't work.

@@marcning918 that was what i thought too

Nah, some say there's a dome as well, so everything would very likely be in Antartica then, if anything according to some

That has to be the best argument I've heard.

Womp womp. Come up with a new joke.

​@@edwardmyers8782people been saying this since 2015 it's over played.

@@blowc1612 Just like Flat Earthers arguments

As an angler I can say that holding a fish at arms length towards the camera makes it appear bigger than holding it close to you chest.

I mean, I'm sure there's plenty of flat earthers that also believe that big doors on old buildings prove that people used to be 10' tall

@Captain_Pudding "people used to be 10' tall" I think that's the mud-flooders.

@@John_Smith_60 there's the Tartarian people too who think that talk doorways in old buildings (made to be used by people on horseback) are because people used to be giants

@Captain_Pudding I may be confusing the "Tartarians" with the mud-flooders, because there *_is_* the overlap. I tried to find one of Dan's videos that had people making the giant claim, but gave up before I found one.

@Down_is_now_up How ironic, those are the exact requirements to become a flerfer.

@@fastone371 Ironic?

@fastone371 That's what they said lol

Also ignorance and stubbornness

oh, one of the features of a P1000 is an "auto-focus" feature. they NEED that because they have NO idea what "focus" even MEANS!

My expectations were low, but I'm still floored by how, for such devotees of Nikon products, they're genuinely dogshit at using them.

If they actually focused on a star they would not get an image vastly different from what "mainstream" science shows us, thus they could not "prove" that NASA is lying to us. It also would not show the rippling effect that "proves" there is water above the firmament.

@@NeutralDrow I take it they are good cameras ?

@@andymouse I assume so.

Yes, Facebook has been serving up space groups and posts for me and it's alarming how quickly anything that isn't access restricted gets spammed with abusive comments calling everything fake--including pictures that were obviously taken with an amateur's backyard telescope. What makes matters worse is that there are some spammy groups that do nothing but post stolen pictures with inaccurate captions, and they don't do much to distinguish photos from artwork or CGI, so sometimes the picture *is* fake but it's completely beside the point--it wasn't made with the intent of convincing anyone it was real. I follow a RU-vid channel that posts realistic-looking CGI renders of spacecraft that were proposed but never really existed, and the number of commenters who shout "CGI" as if they were uncovering a conspiracy is kind of hilarious.

@@MattMcIrvin there’s one Facebook page in particular I can’t stop. As I get a new post under someone’s name under the banner of that page. It normally posts an image with not even a full sentence as to what the image is or how it was obtained and it’s clearly baiting for arguments. Another page that popped up had the same comment. Could have been something along the lines of "But there are no stars visible, therefore it’s obviously fake, so you’re all morons." The exact comment or wording doesn’t matter however every such comment was identical, including an error in punctuation. As in a sentence ended, then a space then the full stop, and then the next sentence with no space between the full stop and the first letter of the new sentence. I think I found 14 such identical comments so this peak my interest. Each persons profile commenting was relatively new Facebook profile, with just a few photos posted. Along these lines on a completely unrelated subject both me and a friend amounts others were subjected to some vile accusations from a profile from a lady In Canada. One of the people on the receiving end did a google image search using a few photos off that ladies profile. Turns out that Canadian profile was fake and used photos copied off a genuine profile from someone in the south east US. There are certainly some agent provocateurs lighting some tinder and successfully drawing out genuinely contrarian people to feel free to launch abuse where ever they would be unwelcome.

That is one of the funniest parts of the flat earth "community." None of them agree with one another on anything. Some of them will answer that the sun is local. Others will answer that it is a projection. Many of the larger ones simply deny outright that they are making the positive claim that earth is flat. Most won't answer at all. They'll just deflect and try to move on, because that's how flerfs flerf.

😂😂😂. That’s like saying all “Globe earthers” don’t believe that the earth is a Globe!!

I mean...strictly speaking, that's true. A good chunk of them just pretend to believe the Earth is flat so they can feel like big-brain specialbois. I fail to see how that's any better, though. 🤔

Not all vegans stop eating meat

​@@lh4394That doesn't work.

And the ancients figured this out several hundred years ago.

I think they will claim that gases are made at ground level, so that's where the oxygen is. That also happens to be one of the excuses they use when someone asks them why there is an air pressure gradient. Obviously, all flerf arguments are ad hoc. They always fall apart when another variable is included.

@@ottomaddoxx5360 And they add another argument to cover the new variable, which produces another debunk which requires another variable, and so on. Flat-Earth is a house of cards built on a foundation of sand.

I'd guess most of them are climate change deniers as well.

@@davidg4288 Since, like most conspiracy theories, a requirement of flat earth is a reactionary frothing over "Big Government," that's basically a guarantee.

@@ottomaddoxx5360 Interestingly, if they admit pressure gradient (regardless the reason), they can no longer reject vacuum without a container. If the pressure gets lower the higher you get, it would mean pressure would eventually become zero, a.k.a. vacuum, a.k.a. space.

It's easy to present this stuff because they don't understand what happened so they feel they have a 'gotcha'. Where are the people committed enough to the flat earth theory with a model to debate?

It's triple distilled down to pure BS.

@@rabidbanshee model, what model? Oh, that's right, there isn't one. Why? Because a flat earth is completely incompatible with reality, so there can be no single, internally consistent, non-self-contradicting model that explains more than one phenomenon at a time. Unlike the rotating globe model that explains them all. And don't call it a theory, it is, at best, an hypothesis. From which predictions can be made and tested. And when we make such predictions and test them the result is always the same: *they all falsify the hypothesis that the earth is flat.* To become a theory, an hypothesis must provide multiple, detailed predictions which have been verified through experiment and observation; it must explain satisfactorily all the known relevant observational data, and be robust to any new data that comes along. And when such new data contradicts it, it must be modified or abandoned. So even if there were no satellites, no images of the earth from space, no astronauts, and no landings on the moon (all of these things are real) the earth still wouldn't be flat because it couldn't be. The existence of accurate undistorted globe shaped maps of the whole earth and the non-existence of the equivalent for the flat earth is sufficient to demonstrate this. Therefore *every* flat earth claim, proof, or argument *must be wrong,* most trivially so, a few are a bit more subtle, but *none is correct, without exception.*

@@rabidbanshee They don't exist. Every flat Earth argument is intended solely to convince the person making the argument. Not a single one of them has any confidence in their claims. They want to believe it, they're trying hard to believe it, but they demonstrate regularly that they're filled with doubt. Sadly, they want to believe it so badly that most of them can't even recognize the doubt they display so clearly.

@@rabidbanshee Nobody, cause then they'd realize

I've seen several FE believers trying to answer that question. So far I'm aware of five "answers" they give: a) NASA invented the globe and space to steal taxpayer money. Apparently, faking space missions is much cheaper than the NASA budget so they net several millions of USD every year. Also, apparently, everybody thought Earth was flat until 1958. b) The "globe theory" was invented in the 1500s by atheist-devil worshipper-jesuit-freemasons (add a sprinkle of jews to taste) to hide God and make Darwinian evolutionism and Big Bang Theory possible (350 and 420 years later, respectively). c) There actually are fertile lands beyond Antarctica and the evil governments don't want people to know it and settle them. d) The lie is an end on its own. Just by making you believe in something false the evil governments acquire power over you or something. The second part is not even required: to quote a meme created by Jake "The Asshole" Gibson, "Simply put they lie to us to make us believe in what is not, so we never actually know what is". In other words, globe Earth is the most elaborate trolling ever. e) The reason for the coverup is unknown, all you need to know is that a coverup is going on.

Stupid reasons."To hide god", is one of many.

They don't have an answer to that. The most logical (sic) of their explanations is that there is lots of empty land on the other side of the South Ice Wall. And for some reason NASA, et. al. don't want us simple people to know that. But they do not have an explanation of WHY they don't want us to know about all that empty land.

To hide God is one of the most common answers which confuses me. I am not sure how the earth being a globe precludes the existence of God. I think Big Globe is behind the "globe hoax" to sell globes to an unwitting public.

Couldn't say myself. But the reason I've heard the most proposed by the flerfs is something along the lines of making humans feel small, insignificant, or powerless, or to make us forget about the divine.

😂 I like how your brain works!

If you hadn't said it I would have had to. I don't even fully blame them anymore. Cell phone cameras have gotten to the point where when a camera has multiple lenses they list zoom factors of the fixed focal length lenses. There is a lot of messaging out there that seems to show that zoom means something other than what it does.

@@NomadSoul76 Thank you for your additional information. While there were lenses that fitted the definition of a zoom lens decades ago, the term probably came from the Zoomar, designed by Frank Back of the Zoomar Corp in the US and made by Voigtländer in Germany, the first zoom lens designed especially for still cameras.

Do they think Gallileo had 14 different fixed focussed telescopes?

right. the p1000 has the zoom lens with the greatest difference between wide angle and close up, not the lens with the greatest magnification. in fact, you can buy hobbyist quality telescopes with greater magnification, and better light collection, with a fitting to use your phone to snap the picture' and have better pictures than a p1000.

@@kenbrown2808 It might be an unpopular opinion, but I have a feeling that the P1000 was made for those who determine a camera's merits by the numbers on its specification sheet. There again, I have met people who determine a car's merits by the number of cup holders it has...

I would respect them more if they stopped self-debunking.

Two ways for a flat earther to earn my respect- 1. Show me a map and a model that are functional and which make accurate predictions about reality, or 2. Stop being a flat earther.

I would respect Flearthers if they went back to selling used cars and snake oil elixirs.

@@kenbrown2808astronaut Chris cassady Freudian slip admitting the iss is in America over 848k views of people laughing at you overly trusting gullible fools not a single rebuttal from scimandan or professor Dave cuz if they adress it they’d have to admit they were gullible fools they clearly aren’t man enough to admit they’ve been duped nothing but a bunch of cowards ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Jp9Y8I6v_Ds.htmlsi=jZBdL1r-Y8dRDklQ

I believe the anger to be misplaced. We should criticise how advertising functions on RU-vid and in society while being sympathetic towards the creators themselves.

@@tilestwo Yes! Dan's ads are something I can scroll past if I don't want to see the content. Many youtube ads are fixed and are mostly something I will never purchase.

At least the ads are up front and at the beginning, also he’s not sneakily hawking an app like Flat Earth Dave

I suspected that's what it was. I'm not saying it's wrong to be specific in these things, but I do want to add that something like a hydrogen Alpha filter will allow a telescope to see more detail of the surface of the Sun. It won't look the same as what that image showed, but it will still show more detail.

@NomadSoul76 you're correct with that. We use H-Alpha as well, since it is a wavelenght that we can use on earth bound telescopes. Same goes for Ca-K and H-Beta and is even something amateur astronomers can personally do (if they want to spend a few thousand bucks ofc), even more reasons why those "memes" of flat earthers are simply lies :)

That's so charming, you actually sarcastically think the flerfs will take up the challenge.

No problem, if the Final Experiment does take place, no flat earther will accept the result. Flat earth is like a religion, it needs faith to survive.

It doesn't matter!! You could take a flat earther into space and let them look at the globe and they'd still say it's fake

'Interesting..." Of course the others will just ignore the evidence of the chosen one (if he provides it).

The flerfs have a huge amount of excuses already prepared. Anything from paid shills to a fake sun.

True, also needs to be said the image quality of that scope was quite rough compared to even the basic cheap telescopes of today

he could barely make out what saturn and jupiter looked like, his sketches were very primitive

@@mrshonk3948 I googled them. Quite profound.

Yes. Similar to a "clown car of flerfs".

Underrated comment

"A hammock of cake"

remove your brain

Drink more Draino

@rocketscience4516 The fact that you are “thinking” about it is a poor start…..fix that tendency first. By whatever means you deem necessary. But be advised that choosing a non-approved method of “stop thinking” MAY cause the rest of the FE community to doubt your Bona Fides…. Best of luck

You could try oxygen starvation.

Just watch endless videos from one viewpoint and only talk to people who think the same. Everybody else you talk at, not to, and dont listen just keep sidetracking and jumping topics.

Using lithobraking to slow your vehicle always makes for a rough ride.

Wasn't his rocket steam powered?

you missed the biggest laugh: he wasn't a real flat earther. he was a grifter who used flat earthers to fund his goal of a homemade rocket.

@@kenbrown2808 At last, a practical use for flat-Earthers. Grifters always look for target-rich environments, and there are few environments so filled with willing griftees than the flat-Earth community.

And he got the Darwin Award

Holograph or something. No explanation is required if you don't accept the evidence to begin with.

A shadow is 2-dimensional, thus cannot be spherical. It's circular.

@@MisterHowzat Get a football in front of a table lamp this evening and what shadow it casts if the earth was flat it wouldn't circular, you can also carry out experiment in the comfort of your armchair with a round coaster holding it horizontally in front of a lamp its the shadow cast is a line then hold the coaster vertically and see what shadow is cast it's really simple.

@@MisterHowzat its both - a sphere casts a cylindrical shadow volume from a parallel light source and a conical one from a point source. The intersection of a 3d surface with the volume is 2 dimensional and can be any shape. In the case of the Earth's shadow volume, the Sun is sufficently far that it casts a cylinder into space whose circular intersection onto the directly opposite Moon matches its stated distance. What Aristotle and his contemparies noted was that the shadow was the same for all orientations of the Earth and Sun at different times of the year i.e. only a sphere casts the same circular intersection from _any_ direction onto a surface exactly opposite the Sun.

@@user-hp5qw3fv6m Well then the Earth's shadow isn't spherical, it's cylindrical (relative to space, not the moon). A spherical shadow still doesn't exist. It's 2D projection is circular and it's actual 3D shape is cylindrical.

We use Oxy-Acetylene burning torches under water.

I think it was Lord Kelvin (along with a few other at a similar time) who tried to calculate how long the sun would last if it where driven by chemical combustion. The answers came up an average of 100 million years. From that they deduced either Darwin’s theories were wrong as there wasn’t enough time (Lord Kelvin leant towards this conclusion) or some pondered that there could be another process going on. One which they hadn’t discovered yet. ( had we social media with these Flerfers then, they would all be decrying "you don’t know this bit therefore you’re wrong about everything else" Of course later with the structure of the atom becoming revealed and thus nuclear reactions, that gap in knowledge was being filled.

Galileo could observe the phases of Venus. Mars and Jupiter are pretty obviously spherical even with a low-magnification telescope like his later ones.

One of his main discoveries was the four main moons orbiting Jupiter.

@@grahvis His sketches basically involved a ball with four small dots around it

Didn’t he theorize that Saturn had giant ears or something

You could always just go to a church service instead.

Let’s not complain about Dan, instead complain about RU-vid undervaluing the artists that bring people to their platform and create value for their company!

Lets complain about the way someone tries to make a living! He used to upload a lot less, so now we get more uploads, more content and yes, more ads. You can just skip forward you know. Do you shout to the sun that it's in the sky for too long when it's hot during summer too?

@@patrickspapens5497 What do you mean he use to upload less so we got more uploads?

@@tilestwo his upload schedule changed. More uploads now than a while ago, so now we get more content

Curvaceously Challenged Earth?

how thick is the universe according to globe earthers? Is it a pancake now or also an oblate sphere? what is behind the universe? a brick wall? can you fall off the edge?

​@@Yepbutno-yl5bxThe observable Universe is 98 million light years and geometrically it is thought to be flat. That's the great thing about science, we can update and change our theories when more data becomes available. Science is the study of change and as our understanding and technology gets better the theories will get more accurate or will become obsolete. So to answer your question, no matter where you are in the universe you will only be able to see a sphere of 98 million light years as the observable Universe changes relative to the viewer.

@@noladavis5085 Billion - not million

@@Llanchlo I blame lack of caffeine. Cheers for the correction.

I guess it's time for them to us film cameras. Not that's a big deal, but if they want to be accurate... . I feel slightly offended as an amateur astrophographers seeing flat earth claims and their big guns, the Nikon p900. To be fair, the camera is pretty great but nothing beats a telescope. The sun image they reffer to, i could see what they are aiming for. Considering there are commercially available sun telescopes with hydrogen filters they could spend some money, be it its a bit expensive

@@photonik-luminescence 99% of flat earthers have never touched a telescope. I've known one flerf who has a scope and has used it. He's a religious flat earther who believes in the "many heavens" idea. LDS, and some others think there are different heavens. So, he thinks what he sees in the scope are in those different heavens, and there are different layers of firmament. The things he sees are in those different firmament layers. It's quite a story.

@@ottomaddoxx5360 interesting. Let me tell you that, i am for one Christian, and no true Christians will tell you that nonsense. That really is not good 😂. Other then that i definitely recommend to anyone to see planets through their telescope with their family (if they have a good family). It's definitely awesome 😎

@@photonik-luminescence Some FEs have claimed that their P-1000s are better than the Hubble Telescope. Some claim that the Hubble images are just CGI fake images as well.

@@photonik-luminescence I've noticed a lot of disbelief over the "high-resolution" space photos that NASA astronauts could take way back in the 1960s... with FILM. They don't understand how high-res film is. And they apparently don't have memories of these photos being published in books decades before CGI could do anything close to that. (I remember Jim Blinn of JPL doing some of the first attempts at photorealistic space renderings to illustrate the impending Voyager missions to the outer planets. I was in awe of what he was doing. But it was primitive compared to what a video game console can do in real time today, and nobody would mistake his renderings for real pictures.)

For some 3,14 times is enough. ;-)

Yep. There's so much more. As an amateur astrophographer, i can tell you that if you don't have a anti dewing heater on the telescope, it will dew. Unless you go stargazing during warmer times, but where i am its cold at times when i go to capture planets because they show up during autumn or winter (sometimes). But if you can't eaven focus your camera... Just don't post the image as "proof". My un stacked first attempts are far more convincing then FEs unfocused images. I have seen one video my self. My astrophotography-self cried

I want them to show us moving the focus slowly from minimum to maximum so they can really prove their point. And not that they intentionally set it out of focus.

@@asiano3385 They don't intentionally set the photo out of focus (and -exposition- EDIT: sorry, exposure, silly me). They simply don't know what focus, exposition and image artefacts are. They point the camera and let the magical P1000 do all the work.

What is real in the frist place?

Decision-making process of a flerf: "Which one agrees with what I want to believe?"

It's helium taken at a wavelength of 30.4nm