To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DaveMcKeegan . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.

Flat planes cannot hide objects. Imagine getting to adulthood and still thinking that nothing can hide something. This is basic physics that we understand by the age of 3.

The table trick is only useful for one thing. It demonstrates whoever does it KNOWS they are lying.

I know a flat earther who, on one occasion, called me a liar when I said that when flying over the ocean or just a flat area that you can see the gentle curve of the earth. When I asked him where he's flown before he said "Oh, I haven't flown anywhere. I've never been on a plane". The cognitive dissonance.

I still don't understand how flat earthers believe that NASA spends billions to "hide the truth" but won't spend like 30million to assinate every flat earther

TIL: never argue with a photographer about camera-based optical phenomena

Flat Earthers don’t understand a lot of things. So a table stumping them? Doesn’t shock me. lol

I don't think flat earthers will ever come round.

FLERFS: We can disproove globe by using optics! Optics: Exist FLERFS: That's CGI!!!

You turned the table on them.

They have actually gone to a lot of work to pretend the camera is level with the table. That suggests they know that what they are doing really is a con.

Why is the camera even at table level? On their flat Earth it would still need to work when viewed at every height ABOVE sea level. Because in reality, whatever height you are at, things disappear over the horizon bottom first. This "experiment" seems to suggest that they are only seeing things disappear bottom first when their eyes are at sea level? Whatever the observer's height (in the real world), things still disappear over the horizon, and still go bottom first. They need a demo with their camera at every single height to show what happens in reality. I'm not holding my breath for that experiment !

My co worker is a flerf. I prove him wrong with so many scientific points but he doesn’t comprehend any of it and says I’m the idiot/ close minded one. Ive never been around someone so stupid

Being wrong is not only human, it's how we learn. But a flat earther is so wrong, they are wrongerer.

Kind of insane how they do not appreciate that it is problematic if you cannot also recreate this behaviour from a higher vantage point. We don't need to get down so low that water is entering our noses, in order to see a ship disappear bottom first.

Sees proof of actual optical lenses in use. "Is this CGI?"

Literally EVERY flat earth experiment is like a "tribute" to the fact they don't understand what they are doing: Because the more they understand, the more it threatens the belief. And in the threads, that's ALL they try to assert: "We do, and you don't, so we're right". But their "evidence" never withstands any examination. That's why people who know this win EVERY single exchange with them. Its truly fascinating, watching them 🤡themselves.

Basically, these fools have never stuck their hand between their eyes and noticed that they can "see through" it on either side.

Classic example of flat earthers adjusting their test method to get the result they want. And then closing their eyes and putting fingers in there ears when it's debunked.

That dog straight up loves you bruh

“This must be CG because it goes through the window” Well actually if it was CG then they’d have the satellite asset in the distance still so it would go behind the window, not through it. That can only be done with lens distortion. Which is possible with CG, but not a priority, or something people think about unless they’re proficient with how cameras work

So according to flat earthers NASA spends billions of dollars every year to hide the flat earth but they can’t be bothered to hire a continuity director?

A better demonstration would be to have the camera slightly above the surface of the table, because the camera is meant to simulate our eyes which are famously located slightly above the surface of the earth. I do get a laugh at the idea of flerfs shoving their faces into the dirt to look at the horizon though.

flatearther not understanding why their nosebridge never obstructed their view significantly.

They get confused REALLY EASILY...

That Mitchell From Australia deception was a classic. Clearly he thought everyone was as dmb as him and wouldn't notice the obvious con.

Flerfs just discovered proudly that a camera pointing through a perfectly opaque table cannot show the objects above the table. Wow. 6 yrs old? Nuh uh. 4...

Ah the good old having the camera below the table and focusing tricks.

This dog gets so much cuddle time... I'm jealous.

Some People are stupid. You don't need camera to prove. Come to ASIA, there are many islands, many islands disappear over the horizon. A 10 year old me instinctively tell the earth is not flat. EDIT: I am 30's now

An explicit checklist of the facts at the end would be helpful. 1. Their Cameras were bellow the side of the table causing their desired outcome of obscuring objects 2. Optics can both obscure distant objects AND make them visible around an edge depending on how open your apeture is, causing something obscured to become visible at a long focal length. 3. Flat Earthers will cherrypick evidence like an expert orchard farmer to support their preconceived beliefs 🤣.

A CG artist would never make the “mistake” with the ISS window that he claims proves the footage was cgi. Only a camera lens could fuck that up

Imagine playing hide and seek with a flerfer! They would just run away but stay in plain sight thinking they disappear with perspective.

Why do they never try this trick above the table? In reality objects still disappear bottom up when seen from elevation too.

When I put a cardboard tube up to one eye and hand in front of the other eye, it appears like there is a hole in my hand. According to flat earthers, though, I must be using CGI.

Mitchell's footage can be disproven when he lowers the camera you can see by the chairs either side that the lowest seen part of chair is about an inch higher than the back of the table. My dog is also a fan.

I wonder how many good, knowledgeable photographers believe in a flat earth or are moon landing deniers. Just understanding how cameras work destroys a lot of those claims right off the bat.

The problem with that demonstration is that they put the camera slightly below the plane of the desk/table. It doesn't even try to take actual perspective into account, meaning slightly above the plane. Which would immediately destroy their argument. The only way this works is by beginning with an obstruction. ...and of course this is the first thing you cover, as I'm typing it. X'D

I am perplexed why there is even a debate on the shape of earth in this modern age, with so much evidence, even from ancient sources. Did some very bored person sit around one day with their friends and say, we can create a movement that is absurd, and people will follow it like lemmings.?? seems to be the case, maybe we should find the person that started this movement, and give them a Noble prize for proving just how gullible people can be.

4:00 - Ask Mitchell why we can see the underside of the table in his demonstration if the camera is set up correctly

I think we can safely say that Flat Out Truth's camera is below the table because as the POV camera gets close to horizontal the reflection looks like an elipsis rather than a circle

I'd never have thought that tiger photo was taken from behind a fence. You could take that to a party and come up will all manner of crazy anecdotes on how you got that shot.

Like the birds, I noticed flethers seemed very quiet roundabout the ‘US’ eclipse, whose path totally showed the rotating spherical earth - rotating at 24 hours per day remarkably😎

A more accurate test is to have the camera lens above the table. Everything we observe on the earth is from 1.5-2m above the surface. Even if lie down on the ground we are still above the surface. When we look at the horizon we are looking down ever so slightly. I also have an amazing photo of an ancient boat that was in a room curing with resin for a very long time. The photo was taken through glass that was reinforced with wire and coated with mist on the inside. Yet when I took the photo, the glass, wire, and water droplets are not visible as they were very close to the camera and blurred out. I could see the boat better in the photo than with the naked eye. pretty cool...

For your tiger picture and the fence not being visible, a similar example to that for the human eyes is if you play hockey with a cage helmet. I grew up playing hockey and when you wear the cage you just look straight through it and don't see any lines from it because you're focused on things behind it.

You can actually debunk seeing the satellite through the window’s edge just by using your finger. If you close one eye, put your finger up to your open one, and look at something far away, you can see that thing through the blurry outline of your finger.

People who don't understand cameras trying to do science with cameras.

You would think tables would be the one thing flerfs are good at.

I think flat earthers know the world is a globe they just don't want to admit it because it would mean they'd have to admit they are incorrect.

Oh my god, that's your tiger shot! I love that picture, it's gorgeous.

Their janky camera movements when showing the camera setup is another give away they know they are liars.

Gotta lie to FLERF!

I've NEVER understood the whole idea of the concept of "water finds its own level argument since a drop of water on a table, forms a half sphere. a bubble is a sphere

You are so good at explaining things, and I'm really enjoying about learning about the physics of Photography from you.

If all these table experiments were proof of a flat earth then they also have to work with the camera above the flat plane. The sun still sets for me when I'm not lying on the ground with my eyes halfway through the floor! The sun still sets for me when I'm on a mountain looking across the sea. etc.

I have 3 reasons for why I watch your content- 1: I like watching pseudoscience or dumb ideas be disproven. 2: The way you present in your videos and everything is just great! 3: Your dog is adorable.

I don't think they'll accept this, you didn't use their favourite camera, and clearly that one must work completely differently to all others (/s)

I believe flerfs push f.e. Knowing full well it's all bs & do it for ad revenue.

When I hold my hand close to my eyes and focus on something behind it, I can see through my hand. Proving i am cgi. Guess that's a good demonstration of this effect that everyone can make. You can also hold one finger directly infront of one eye and also see though it's blurry edges.

It's almost like they're being disingenuous.

I don't know if anyone has addressed this so I will say it here. There are thousands of scientific and technical/engineering articles written _very year_ that would have to be in sync with this vast conspiracy or else it would get blown, a tremendous effort that would be extremely costly. On top of that, since they're faking it, there would have to be an equally vast effort required to make sure everyone was faking it the right way, unlike real science and technology where you do what you do and the results are what they are, no coordination needed to make sure Japanese, Russian, Chinese, European, etc scientists and engineers aren't contradicting each other. The only way to manage such a vast conspiracy would require more massive documentation, more massive costs. And this would be going on for at least 2 maybe 3 generations, involving millions and millions of folks, and NO ONE has spoken up, no one has leaked any dox at all? PLUS, I think no one would disagree that science and technology have massively progressed over that time. How do they do this? Well, there would have to be thousands of articles _every year_ about the 'real' science and engineering, again,all secret and, again, _none_ leaked? So you'd have the vast effort to write the fake dox, the vast effort to coordinate it all with secret documentation, and the vast effort to do the real science and tech and write all the equally secret dox. The cost would be absolutely mind boggling and why? FFS, why? And even more FFS is you'd start getting to the point where numbers of those in on it would rival the numbers fooled and again, just why?

Besides all this... All the observations of ships going over the curve: the cameras taking those aren't at sea level. They would have had to dig a hole in the beach to put the camera in. So for the table analogy, the camera should be above the table, so no part of the lens is blocked by its edge. Then they won't be able to do their trick.

That was an interesting fact about opening the aperture allows more of the lens to 'appear' over the top of the table, thus... being able to see the top of the table

I’m a few seconds in and I already know this is when they put half the lens underneath the table! You can get the same effect in the ocean if you put half your eyeball under sea level. (Dig a hole in the beach, don’t try putting half your open eye into salt water!!)

So according to flerfs objects should start disappearing bottom up after a couple of feet over a flat surface, unless of course we’re looking at spaghetti oil platforms then “we see too far” 🤔 Flerfs are really the masters of self debunks.

I've noticed this effect of looking passed an obscuring object by taking it out focus before, not with a camera, but just my eye. The simplest example i can think of is when i force my eye out of focus, my nose might obscure, say, a poster on a wall, but when i focus on the wall again, i can see the poster clearly. It's really cool to finally know the mechanics behind it.

Well done. Thanks again Rusty (and you too Dave).

Flerfs confused by reality!

Love how flat-earthers try to claim victory when they just fundamentally misunderstood something!

What I can't believe is you just casually dropping one of the best pictures I've ever seen of a tiger like it was just another example lol. That pic is amazing.

Tables can be hard to understand. I dont know how many times i have crotched myself on a table corner.

So we gotta play the game of " Deceit or Incompetence" on their footage? A classic with all Flerf experiments.

Nice to see a dog with a emotion support human

Yeah, with their camera positioning, they forget that they don't film ships at sea from the ground (or below the ground). They generally have their camera on a tripod, a few feet off the ground. They need to keep the camera positioned just above the surface of the table, or else it's not comparable.

Really happy to get another optics video. All of the videos from this channel are of a consistent quality, but the ones that have some level of experience and expertise are on another level.

The demonstration at 11:30 is the best part. It gives away why the others fail. Not only do they not understand the globe and perspective, they do not understand camera optics. This is an important feature to highlight, since a person generally does not know what they are ignorant of (by definition), but a wise person does not assume that they know everything relevant about a situation. They do additional research to learn more about the topics they have not studied to see if they can better explain what they are trying to understand and observe.

This is one of the most informative videos you have done. I'm not a photographer, so I never exactly understood how the opening of the iris controls focus- it makes perfect sense. The camera they were using was clearly BELOW the level of the table. Love your picture of the tiger, BTW.

I stopped watching FE videos a few yrs ago. It didn't matter how many times they were debunked they just kept pushing out the same lies video after video.

Mitchel forgets/ignore 3 frames during witch the camera is still moving down... That's almost as bad as the cut 11 frames from his infamous colleague. Blurring due to change of focal point, or another thing that LEO can't accept and can't understand, or, just can't. So, LEO can't focal blur.

One thing that is highly significant is that in reality once you raise the observer height even slightly, you can increase the range of view, but then the object (i.e. ship going away) will still disappear later. Now tell flerfs to reproduce it on flat table...

Thank you for this explanation. I've not been able to explain those table observations even to myself as my understanding level of photography is basically "point, click, image captured".

Congratulations Dave Mckeegan on your incredible videos! Your thoroughness leaves no margin for error, making each debunking of flat earthers both entertaining and educational. Your explanations are top-notch, making you one of the best debunkers out there. I never miss a video! While watching, I can't help but feel a tinge of sadness for flat earthers and wonder what goes on in their minds amidst so many conspiracies. Keep up the fantastic work, and I eagerly await your next video!

This table stunt reminds me of a deceptive (I know, redundant) TV commercial they used to have for some anti-perspirant spray. They sprayed brand X on someone's wrist (palm up) and then sprayed brand Y on the same arm, but close to the elbow. Then they pushed a cotton ball into each patch of spray. Then the person rotated their wrist to palm-down. The cotton ball near the hand (which went through probably 170 degrees of rotation, being near the hand) fell off, BUT the cotton ball near the elbow (which doesnt rotate when you rotate your wrist) and thus only went through about 30 degrees of rotation, does NOT fall off. Which proves, to no one at all, that brand X is better because it is dryer. As long as you spray it on your wrist, not your armpit.

I guess there's no harm in debunking this new flat-earth shtick, but to be frank, it doesn't seem like it's necessary, because it doesn't seem like they're arguing in good faith. I believe that they _KNOW_ what they're doing with the camera height, but are conveniently looking past it because to do so advances their narrative.

"We're all human, everyone gets stuff wrong from time to time; I don't think there should be any shame in getting things wrong, I see it as an opportunity to learn from it and learn something new." well done... 👍

That was fantastic Dave. The same experiment (Tiger and fence disappearance) can be done without a camera. 1) Using only your eyes (Because you can never trust 'big company' camera makers)and a thin something like a mouse cord or USB charge cord, close 1 eye. 2) Now hold that between both hands and make it tight/firm. 3) Now hold that at arm's length and focus on anything behind the cord, take notes of the cord change as you slowly bring both hands closer to you. 4) You should see the cord vanish right in front of your eyes, literally.

As always, you do a wonderful explanation of how the optics of photography work. I showed my daughter how when she takes pictures of birds at her bird feeder through the window, her camera kept focusing on the screen over the window (lidar or ultrasonic sensor, not sure) and the bird was out of focus. By setting the focus to manual, she could focus on the bird and 'Voila!' suddenly the screen 'disappears'! Of course not sure that any flat-earther will bother learning more about photography, it doesn't fit their 'world view'. But the rest of us appreciate your explanations.

Having been a photographer for 20 years - I found your explanations of focus, focal length, depth of field, etc refreshing.

4:11 Needs a patterned wall in the background so we can see if the table-camera setup is level. The fact that watching bits on the far chairs shows parts of them vanishing below the front of the table as the camera is lowered strongly suggests the lens is slightly too low. Which cynical-me says is intentional. Regardless of whether the experiment has been tainted by intention or not, it needs to be redone under proper conditions and with more transparancy than this for anyone to draw any conclusions.

Another excellent job Dave. I really enjoy the way you explain things, the icing on the cake is the occasional gentle "dig" you add in every so often. Lovely.

Nice job bring down the complexity of a camera lens. So much math goes into designing those lens that many people would not get it.

04:41 *FACE PALM* this is so monumentally idiotic. You can literally see the table in FRONT of the lense. If they want to prove bottom up disappearance *ON* a flat earth, put the damned lense *ON* the stupid table, better yet on a nice long flat floor. The fact that the lense will be a fraction of an inch “above” the floor shouldn’t matter as long as the floor is long enough for them to move an item away and show us all how stupid we are for doubting them! This seems like intentional deception and makes me wonder once again how many of these Flerfs are faking it.

The 2 main problem with the Flat Earthers "table" argument are. 1) If the table is the Flat Earth then the camera needs to be ON the table, not off the edge of the table. They have to put the lens ON the table. 2) Flat Earthers will say the Earth is FLAT but not really FLAT it has hills. mountains and depressions. The ocean has crests and troughs so it's also not FLAT. They can't use a FLAT table and say that is the FLAT Earth then turn around and say the Earth is not FLAT.

Ugh. Sir. Loved this. Fantastically thorough debunking of the dunning-kruger effect. Definitely looking forward to more of your content. Subscribed.

I guess we can add cameras to the long list of things those idiots don't understand.

This will not be accepted. It is obviously too complex for a mind that doesn't even trouble itself to understand what a camera is doing when it "zooms".

The most amazing thing is that you actually answer the “science” of these misinformed folks. The earth is round boys.

As an amateur videographer still learning how every part of the camera works in tandem, I cannot express just how helpful the models like 5:40 are at visualizing what's actually going on. It crystallizes the complex physics and engineering so succinctly that I feel MUCH more confident in applying it to my own work. Your content is always top-tier and I feel like watching your channel serves both as a cathartic debunking experience, and also a masterclass in photography

Such a wonderfully detailed explanation. Thank you

Thankyou for reminding me to get on with my 'Brilliant' course on Linear Algebra! (I.e. I'm already subscribed!)