Crap Flat Earthers Say (response to Jeranism)

so this week's video comes to us from Jaron ISM I believe he did a livestream and then somebody else cut up that livestream and put that into a video and then that was reloading but it's flat earth let's take a look at it so the problem with this whole thing if you ask me is that you would think that they could mention other reasons that people are flat earthers you know like the fact that NASA has been lying about going to the moon for 50 years you know the fact that they took more photos on the moon than is even possible even when you multiply it out by the amount of people on the moon the amount of time they were on the moon you take all the images take in the time that they were on video that we know of and they would have been taking photos at a rate of like one every 10 seconds the rest the time they're on the moon completely and totally impossible the project Apollo archived on Flickr apparently has all of the photos from the Apollo missions and in total they have fourteen thousand two hundred eighteen photos not including the ten that are obviously not from the missions so when you take the Eevee a time that's extra vehicular activity or the time spent on moon walks and divide that by the number of pictures you get an average of one picture every twenty point four seconds but wait there are two people taking pictures so that would be an average of one picture every forty point eight seconds per person so how can this be well one two three four five let's say one two three four five and one two three four five I just took 15 pictures now I'm going to assume that this video right here that I'm in that I'm recording that you're watching is going to last 10 minutes because that's what I aim for so that would be an average one picture every 40 seconds but how could that be I mean wouldn't how annoying is this video if I'm just stopping every less than a minute to take pictures that's so annoying I could never say anything in these videos because of how much time I'd be spent taking pictures you see what's happening here you can take a whole bunch of pictures at one time and that will greatly increase your average and looking through these photos you see that's kind of what happened not only that but they didn't have to take that much time setting up these pictures since they already knew beforehand - what the lighting conditions would be and they adjusted the camera settings accordingly beforehand not only that but this is only accounting for evey a time time spent outside the vehicle moonwalks but not every picture was taken during a moon walk there were plenty of pictures taken from inside the vehicle so it's not as crazy as it seems or that water always finds its level what exactly do you mean water always finds its level I hear this from flat earthers a lot but I never hear it explained to know exactly what they mean I mean do you mean that the water is flat because it's not the surface of the water is always perpendicular to the center of gravity so if the earth is a globe then the water is curved as well so your argument basically boils down to it looks flat so it must be flat or at least that's what I understand it to mean but I mean of course the obvious thing that they're overlooking is that the earth is so big that it's difficult to see the curve with the naked eye except in some instances like this or this but obviously that's not good enough for them or the fact that surveyors don't take perspective into account even though we know 100% that things appear to get smaller with distance I really don't know what you're trying to say here so I can't really comment on much but I mean why would a surveyor need to take perspective into account and how would he I don't understand why flat earthers are so adamant that things look smaller with distance because we know it's obvious I'm pretty sure this comes from a misunderstanding of a round earth arguments but I really don't know what this is trying to prove but on the topic of surveyors they don't always take the curvature of the earth into account because I don't always need to depending on what they're doing but over long enough distances they will use estimates that work well enough for what they're doing be that a simple equation or using a reference ellipsoid they do use it or that we can see can agooo from a thousand feet high when it's a hundred and seventy five miles away I mean we can either admit what we see or we can trust men who tell us that we actually don't see the mountain chain then you see the Sun the moon caused mountains to rise a few thousand feet displaying themselves perfectly for you at the horizon line I already responded to this claim in a previous video and I feel like I really nailed it the first time so here's a blast from the past he didn't provide a citation but I believe that this came from this video which also did not cite the original video but I believe I found it here and if you look in the description it links to this website that states that it's only seen every so often during favorable weather conditions and that's because it's caused by atmospheric refraction I'm not jumping to conclusions here it's genuinely stated on this website in French and the fact that this is not seen the majority of the time disproves your points entirely or they don't mention the Chicago skyline where the globe calls for the buildings to be hidden completely but we can look at the skunk bay footage the time-lapse footage and see how weather affects our views of distant shores and how atmospheric effects can account for everything that we see and we can't you mean look at the footage that says that it's a mirage it's not actually a mirage it's actually called looming but still there's your explanation as to how we would see this on the globe earth now to be clear a skunk bay is in Washington so that's a separate issue from being able to see Chicago from Michigan but the time lapse in question was taken from the top of a dune at Warren Dunes State Park and the tallest dune there is 240 feet or 73 meters above the surface of the water which would give you enough height to be able to see to Chicago being higher makes you able to see farther that sounds like a round earth to me or how they explain our observations without assuming the earth is a giant ball in space we don't assume that the earth is a globe we've proven it we've proven it since the ancient Greeks stuff like lunar eclipses southern stars stellar parallax and aberration images from space and more stuff that well you'll reject but I'm not going to go into that right now because I feel like I'm dealing with the counter arguments to those claims which would be going in circles just like density and buoyancy can excavate li explained gravity and the only thing they can't explain of course is how the earth became a sphere no gravity this unseen force must exist because everything must pull to the center it's required by the model that has been built on for hundreds of years no we didn't come up with gravity to support our model we have observed improving our model and we've observed and proven gravity they are both sensible and consistent with each other density alone cannot replace gravity this is because buoyancy requires a gradient of pressure in a fluid and this is caused by gravity buoyancy requires gravity not only that's but buoyancy doesn't pull things down it only pushes things up so bottom line you still need a downward force we're not just coming up with bogus ad hoc hypotheses to support our claims like you guys are how about ignore asteroids and meteors or who chooses which gravity is dynein where it's a isn't a pull force but a push force because mass bends the fabric of space-time mm-hmm or is it Newtonian gravity which one are we actually looking at here you show that you don't really know what you're talking about to answer your question Einstein's theory of general relativity is more accurate but for most purposes Newton's law of universal gravitation is simpler more practical and accurate enough to use which one is correct Einstein but both will work are you trying to say that it's fishy that we used to believe one and now we believe another more because that's flawed changing your mind in light of evidence against what you previously thought is not a bad thing if you find something else to be more accurate than what you thought before it's reasonable to change your mind and I'm not really sure what you're talking about with asteroids and meteors but they'd show a picture of other things that could cause craters which I mean so is that supposed to prove some things that's supposed to to prove that meteors don't exist I really don't know don't mention that NASA trains in a pool as if this training was anything like space with somebody swimming behind you carrying all your cords and handing you all your tools that doesn't happen in space why the hell would we practice like that does making sense to me do you have any better ideas how would you simulate weightlessness on the ground if that's an easy task these astronauts train in a pool with a suit that's specially designed to be neutrally buoyant which is the closest we can get to weightlessness and this training can help them be prepared for spacewalks into making repairs on the ISS the people following them well two of them are for safety and one of them has a camera I'm not sure what every diver does though but surely you can see that this would be a decent way to prepare for microgravity how about the idiotic design of the ISS that no engineer would ever put every operating cable and control and cord and multiplexer demultiplexer all of it they put on the outside of the craft it makes no sense it's actually embarrassing to think that any engineer would come up with that design the impossibility of it how exactly do you think it's designed it's not like they just put anything and everything on the outside but there are some things there like sensors solar panels cameras radiators it makes sense for these things to be on the outside do you expect there to be nothing on the outside of the station that could ever possibly fail I'd like to see how you would design a space station or that it's maintained and cleaned by a three-person crew I mean that is ridiculous the amount of cleaning and dusting and everything else that would need to be done on that the seal protection and it's just not there they get a leak because they're little Oh rings well you got a leak then you do a spacewalk I guess how dirty do you think the ISS is as I understand it things are cleaned and disinfected pretty well before they're sent up to the station and they have some pretty darn good air filtering because they kinda have to it's not like the crew is just throwing food arounds everywhere in there honestly I'm surprised that they even need three people to do it I also like how your idea of an airtight pressurized module involves little earrings that could leak but yeah there are things that could leak and there have been leaks but the only air walks that I found that we're dealing with leaks had to do with ammonia coolant leaks which is fun stuff but it happens don't mention the 53 million dollars a day that might be a little bit too much for people to grasp like what do you mean who gets fifty three million dollars date NASA does what do they do with it launch rockets about once a month into the sky they go pretty and they do a sonic boom from the sky and people like reg rhetoric have an orgasm so nASA has all this money but what could they possibly be doing with it all I'm gonna guess that it has to do with Aeronautics in space after all they are the National Aeronautics and Space Administration look it's not like they're just sitting on their asses and getting paid for nothing these are literal rocket scientists they research Aeronautics and aerospace and they have a space program do you know how much it costs to launch air and spacecrafts the space shuttle program had an average cost of 1.5 billion dollars per launch that money is being used sure if I told you that NASA had a budget of 19 point 3 billion dollars for the 2017 fiscal year that would sound like a lot of money but keep in mind that NASA is part of the United States government and as such the government or should I say taxpayers are the ones paying for it and from that perspective they're actually paid pretty little they're only less than 1% of the US federal budget and they've only ever been a max of 4.4 1% and that was in 1966 during the Apollo program that was for pennies on your tax dollar and now it's less than one and like that I don't think I have much time in this video and we haven't really gotten very far into this video which to be fair this video is very compact and all of the information in there and there's a lot of stuff to go through so watch out for a follow-up buy assure you it's pretty much more of the same but thank you for watching and good bye this channel is funded in part by viewers like you thank you you

Channel: hiith

Views: 107,320

Rating: 4.4610629 out of 5

Keywords: skeptic, skepticism, hiith, flat earth, flat earth debate, nasa fake, iss fakery, flat earth proof, jeranism, ditrh, flat earth debunk, debunk, response

Id: V_sEuBR7HdM

Length: 15min 51sec (951 seconds)

Published: Mon Oct 22 2018