The Sun would be tiny in the real timelapse as well if it wasn't for the glare which blows out a much larger part of the frame. As a landscape photographer and astrophotographer, I've noticed people often don't realize how small the Moon and the Sun actually are in the sky because we perceive them as fairly large with the "focal length" of the human eye. Also, in regards to the shape of the glare and the placement of the Unreal Sun within it, it's good to bear in mind that the Unreal Sun doesn't have to always be directly in the middle of the glare, since the footage is not captured with a tracking camera pointing at the Sun at all times, but with a static 360 camera consisting of two 180 fisheye lens cameras, so there will always be some distortions that will also increase the closer to the edge of the frame of the individual 180 cameras the Sun gets.
Oh wow I didn't realize that about the camera. Now I see it in the video description, oops! Thanks for pointing that out. Now I have to rethink how I lined it up and how I "leveled" the time lapse.
@@heathcarmody2867 Generally the lense glare would be fairlly symmetric, so I wouldn't worry too much if you're matching centers. You should let the program do the leveling because it should know. Remember, a glacier surface is not perfectly level - because the ice is flowing *downwards* (towards the sea in this case I think), so the sun should match, but the effective horizon formed by the glacier may not, and potentially quite a bit. it should still match fairly well if it has a decent map of nearby elevations (eg: WGS84). But elevation maps of Antarctica are probably STILL not nearly as reliable as elsewhere.. For reasons I mentioned elsewhere.
@@heathcarmody2867 What you could try is try to reduce the glare by turning the brightness way down. In otherwords, imitate a solar filter or welding goggles. Theoretically, this should show the actual edges of the sun. But post-processing may be way too late. Even if it does, in your simulation everything would be black except the sun, and perhaps some of the ice between the camera and the sun. Which won't be very interesting. Few people from warmer climates appreciate what it's like during full sun and virtually unbroken ice or snow extending off to the horizon in every direction. Within minutes your eyes start to hurt, and within an hour or two, you can become permanently blind because your eyes have burned out bits of retina. Without looking at the sun directly AT ALL. This is why the TFE people were all wearing very dark sunglasses and never took 'em off. The effect is present in the area I live (only a few hours north of the US border), but not nearly this bad. The Inuit in the far north traditionally took small flattened sticks to cover their eyes, with small narrow carved slits to see out of. Snow or ice blindness is no more of a joke than staring directly at the sun.
Great job, the only thing that seems off about Dave's time lapse is the horizontal drift of the sun going back and forth I expected there to be more, but the vertical angles seem on point. Maybe this is due to his camera mount not being completely level like you pointed out or the motor not turning at a precise constant speed. Assuming the motor did turn exactly 15 degrees every hour and their latitude on the map is accurate then it can be calculated how close to spherical or oblate the earth is.
The number of flerfs that have successfully explained the TFE observations but for a flat earth remains at zero. Instead we get "green screen!", "blue shadows!" etc. Numpties.
@@QBranchSpace It does make for great comedy though. Everyday I have something new to watch and laugh at. I want them to keep it up so folks like Creeky, SciManDan and McToon can continue to bring us smiles as they point out the absurdity of the new claims and theories about the space pizza under a dome... or was it a disk inside a snowglobe? Ah, doesn't matter, either one is funny.
@TheDainerss I saw one today which was something like "the TFE timelapse couldn't have been 24 hours because it was all in daytime" I got a big laugh out of that. How do these people even function in life?
I wanted to do something similar in Blender to highlight Dubay's misunderstanding of shadows. Looks like you put a decent amount of work into this. Good job.
There are only 3 models of REALIY that explain night & day. 1- Spinning balls - Helio or Geo-centrism. 2- Horizontal circles - Pizza Dome-ism. 3- Virtual Realm - Equidistant Circles Based on Latitude. We live in a virtual realm, and the map (coordinate system) is stereographic. The plane of Earth is fixed & immovable. There is no curvature, no gravity, no dome, and no ice wall... Earth has 4 corners and 2 polar rotations. All of the luminaries in the sky are being rendered locally to each individual observer's circle of sight (eyes, cameras, etc.)... The only working map and model of REALITY - Stereographic co-ordinate system by Awake Souls. Look up video -"Stereographic virtual reality EXPLAINED! How the only working map and model of REALITY works".
Ya le pasamos resumen de tus opiniones y las de Martín sobre Jeran "errando" ...veremos qué te dice en 'globebusters'😂...tendrás que chuparle bien el pito esta vez
@ the video isn’t about mountains, but since since the height of those mountains is in relation to sea level you’re going to need a flat plane for that too.
@@scooternutmick Level is correct, since level is to do with gravity. Sea level is an equipotential surface of the Earth's gravity field. You could look this stuff up, you know.
Thee ol dumb idea of .. "they did it all in a huge indoor dome studio.!." ...instead of the most obvious, and simple. the truth is that the TFE team did in fact went down there and became eye witnesses of the 24 hour sunny sky event...which btw was so much easier and cheaper for them to merely take a flight down into Antarctica, and stay at union glacier for 3 days, which they did, and so much simpler merely to set up tripods with 10 cameras to record the 24 sun event ...as opposed to spending millions of dollars on building a huge indoor screen dome super structure ~ NAW ~ get real.
Oh yes, because companies always spend millions of dollars just to make sure some little TH-cam content creators can see a 24-hour sun. They do it all the time, didn't you know. I bet if you scheduled a trip down there right now, they would also spend millions to resetup this miraculous fully immersive sound stage to fool you too. Sounds plausible right?????
@@TheDainerss well no, Will Duffy is just church pastor not a multimillion dollar company, at any rate, I doubt he wanted to spend millions of dollars going about to build a high huge super dome just to deceive the public. I mean why would he risk the exposure? no, the whole thing was just to invite a few flat earthers and globers down there with him , merely to record the 24 hour sun event, which was not too difficult a thing to do, (just fly down there and record what is actually going on...duh~) and thus we saw the proof of the midnight sun during his live stream and later from McKeegan's time lapse work. and there was Critical think's weight experiment. and Mctoon's sun dial shadow time lapse, so it appears that they did as much as they could do in such a short amount of time. And subsequently, it seems to me that Will Duffy already knew that he had a winner in hand before going down there, without doing much more than taking cameras and laptops and sky link equipment, and immediately did a bit of live streaming while he was at it. Even flew his drone a mile up over the Union Glacier area. which was quite impressive. (didn't see any large dome building down there though) To boot a few flat earthers were also there -- who also saw the same non setting sun event and even made a video record of it for themselves, and frankly confessed what they saw, by youtube live stream no less. hardly would they give in to be in on the gag when we know that Jeran and Austin were so strong for the FE position. Well with them only having three days, I find it impossible to think that they could build anything 360 degrees round large and high aka dome like super structure with so much heavy equipment to make it all happen taken with them, and breaking is all down, when they were not allow to bring that much weight on board the flight in the first place. its just too short amount of time, and too much money, much less ship all that material into Antarctica to do that much work is far too unrealistic to imagine. I mean why not simply take your own cameras down there and point it at the sky for 24 hours for 3 -4 days? seems simple enough. again, naw, it appears to me that they mainly walked around outdoors crunching in their snowy footsteps, wearing winter sun glasses for all those hours, checking to make sure their cameras were working right, upon their 8 to 10 tripods.
Esse "experimento" na antártica foi tão real que parece fake 😂 Poderíamos voltar à Antártica e repetir o experimento em um nano segundo mas perdemos aquela tecnologia 📺
In 1960s the go to the moon to make us believe we live on a waterball, in 2025 they go to antarctica to make us believe we live on a waterball and some people believe it.
@ImieNazwiskoOKI don't hate anyone. I knew jeran and austin were shills for as long as I've seen them. You can tell by their behavior usually pretty easily. Do any flat earthers or globers, on youtube, behave like normal people to you? The whole southern half of the world does not exist to the point you have to go to antarctica to see the sun's path there, you will probably pretend that is not meaningful.
@@MATTINCALI Still you continue to insist on calling planet earth a "waterball", despite being told countless times that earth's total mass is made up of about 0.02% water. Ignorance or lies, or both? It's not a good look for you, fella.
108 degree field of view, does that translate to roughly 15mm focal length? I wonder if the shape of the sun (glare) gets distorted as it travels across the sky in a stationary camera. Might not if that is screen space post effect, but it does for me (in Blender) if I create 360 images and bake the post effect into the image. Maybe add "permission to use" if any of the debunkers want to use it. And they have that permission of course. This was very well done.
@@garnet4846 The essence of an experiment is to make a hypotheses, then test the hypothesis. Hypothesis : If earth is a globe, according to the globe model, there should be a 24h sun in Antarctica at angles of 13º and 34º at solar midnight and solar noon respectively on the December 15th. Test : Go to Antarctica on December 15th and see if this is the case or not. So 100% an experiment. Not that it matters either way - your desperate little "gotcha" attempt is lamer that two lame things in a pod.
@@garnet4846 The essence of an experiment is to make a hypotheses, then test the hypothesis. Hypothesis : If earth is a globe, according to the globe model, there should be a 24h sun in Antarctica at angles of 13º and 34º at solar midnight and solar noon respectively on the December 15th. Test : Go to Antarctica on December 15th and see if this is the case or not.
@@skyisthelimitreadyornotfor2 UE is a 3D environment and you can simulate whatever you want. SPECIFICALLY, Cesium ion Earth for UNREAL ENGINE is a 3D GLOBE EARTH MODEL.
the entire point of the video is @5:58 he had to adjust to "apparent flat" or zero radius....sorry but according to the WGS84 standard, the radius of the Earth at the equator (semi-major axis) is approximately 6,378,137 meters... not zero
@@inTruthbyGrace The video is simulating the 24h sun observed by McKeegan with a 3d globe earth. End of story. The modification of the radius is not relevant. The camera is showing a local observation. Changing the radius of the spherical model doesn’t impact much.
Starting with a globe model rotating on its axis and orbiting the Sun, if I change the radius of the Earth while keeping all angular velocities the same, a local observer on Earth’s surface wouldn’t notice any difference in the Sun’s position. Changing the radius of the Globe Earth doesn’t affect the observation of the Sun’s position, as it’s irrelevant to the dynamics governing the apparent motion in the sky.
See Gee Eye 😁 All joking aside: nice job. This model is pretty close to reality. I have tried similar thing with the sun and the moon in Flight Simulator, Outerra, or Space Engine and I didn't got this close.
@@GrantH2606 They have to; TFE proves that the Earth isn't flat, and flerfs are too tied to their delusion to let go. They can't argue against the observations so their only choice is to claim fakery.
@@GrantH2606Isn't it odd that flerfs are also moon-landing deniers? Landing on a Moon that is as close as it has to be for a flat earth should be easy.
ok... please tell me if I am correct? I had to sit down with this one and investigate some unfamiliar vocabulary terms.. for those of you who (like me) do not know them, the definitions of these things are below. The punchline appears to be @5:58 and @6:14: the only way this would render consistent with what is observed in TFE videos is IF the "Cesium globe" plugin (which is the WGS84) is modified to a null (or zero) radius sphere.. ie "flat"... while the sky uses UE5's sun positioning system which is "directional light' inside a sky sphere only capable of generating one real user experience at a time (like it can only replicate one person's view walking view of the sun setting on the beach at a time.. not two)... my conclusion: the is the 3d model to replicate what TFE actually observed requires a zero radius surface (flat earth) using sun positioning in a dome sky (firmament) *_Unreal Engine 5_* is a powerful 3D game development tool created by Epic Games, which allows developers to create highly realistic and detailed virtual worlds with features like "Nanite" for managing complex geometry and "Lumen" for dynamic lighting and reflections in real-time; essentially considered the most advanced game engine currently available for creating immersive gaming experiences. *_Cesium 3D_* is a plugin for the Unreal Engine 5 that provides the technology to render a "geospatial ecosystem for game engines" *_The WGS84 ellipsoid_* is a model that approximates the shape of the Earth, which is not perfectly spherical. The ellipsoid has a defined radius at the equator and is flattened at the top. The WGS84 ellipsoid's origin is the geometric center of the coordinate system, and the Z-axis is the rotational axis. what would it look like if you ran the exact same model using a 4K mile radius sphere?
Excellent comment! To clarify though, the Cesium globe doesn't need to be modified for the Sun to work. It works just the same when modified to be flat or globe, and it was actually in globe state for this demonstration. Technically the Cesium globe is a 4k mile radius sphere that just needs to be rotated so that your location (origin) is always the "top" of the sphere in Unreal's static coordinate system (Z axis UP). The single observer thing has more to do with only having a single gravity vector. So if in a simulation or game, I start at the top and walk a quarter way around the Earth, the directional light would be still lighting the ground from the right angle, but I would be standing parallel to the ground or falling off the "side" of the Earth. If that makes any sense. In other words, to simulate a true globe model, you need to rotate the physical globe and have a gravity vector pointing to the center of the Earth. I'm not aware of any sims or games in Unreal that attempt to do this, at least not on a full scale Earth. Even that would still require a directional light, because a 93 million mile away "point light" Sun would never work.
No, your conclusion is wrong because your premises are wrong. He didn’t set the radius to 0, he said he can set it to 0 if he wants to make it look like a flat earth, but you can see it’s set to 6371 km for this demonstration.
It would be really cool if you could simulate the north and south poles at the same time where the north pole is dark 24 hours and the south has 24-hour sun, all on the same flat earth. Man, that one simulation would put all this controversy to an end. Wait, you can't do that. Or even better simulation how the southern hemisphere rotates clockwise and the north rotates counterclockwise. These two simulations would put an end to the globe earth, so why dont you get on that.
It would be quite pointless. Do you know why? While the Antarctic is in 24 hour sun, the Arctic is in 24 hour darkness, and there's no sun to track. Boring video.
There are 2 patients in a mental institution, one says to the other, 'The Earth is flat ya know' and the other says, 'no that's false but you know what isn't false? Christianity, yeah, one day the world will end and we will all go to heaven and the horrible none believers, well, they go to hell.
When Bob Knodel was living he spoke a lot about the WGS84 model and how it is manipulated to presupposed the globe instead of what is actually measured.
Well, it's too bad that the late Bob knodel was a garbage surveyor because geodetic and land surveyors regularly use wgs84 as their reference ellipsoid. So I'd say that it is pretty darn accurate to what is measured
@@QBranchSpace He wasn't smart enough to try. Seriously. He produced a video afterwards where he admitted to being completely stumped as to why the 15 degrees was calculated as the sum of the drifts directly read off the three axes of rotation of the device itself - and NONE of them were showing a 15 degree rotation individually. He held his right hand up next to a globe, with his fingers curved, and his thumb sticking up and said the three readings seem to be showing that it's moving "this way"- his hand was pushed forward at an angle above the equator and his hand curling anti-clockwise a bit. As if he was sliding his hand from the center around the upper right hand side of a ball. Well, duh, that was the point, and exactly what one would expect! The ONLY points where ONE axis would show 15 degrees (and the other two zero) are at the poles or directly on the equator. Because the device itself is rotating with the earth either vertically or horizontally to the RLG being locally level. Between the equator and poles, the 15 degree drift would be the sum of all three. If he had been smart enough, he would have rotated the device *itself* a bit to get only one axis showing rotation. At this point, the axis showing rotation is exactly perpendicular to the pole axis, and north is perpendicular to that. He couldn't think of it literally. Whereas I would have, because I'd been playing with the three-axis accelerometers on my smart phone, and when you adjust the angle the phone is pointing to zero out two of the axis, the phone is pointing due north and south. Without having to bother with compass declination (degrees to which a magnetic compass deviates from true north). RLGs would make great compasses and don't have to be adjusted to something that changes around the world and in time. But the cost is prohibitive.
@@IAmSomeTreyGuy if this simulation were as good as the TFE video, then the flerfs would wag their finger and holler that the simulation was proof it could all be a staged psyop. lol
@@tabooconspiracy I don't do any calculations to make this work besides figuring out the speed that the simulation needs to run at to match the video speed. The sun position is calculated internally and I couldn't tell you exactly how, but it's likely the same as what tools like suncalc use, and it likely involves Earth's alleged tilt. Remember that this is a moving sun projected on a dome across a locally flat Earth, but I can't say that a rotating sphere Earth and stationary Sun would yield different results, it's just nearly impossible to model that way for performance reasons. Maybe I will give it a shot sometime though. Anyway, I hope you are doing well and Happy New Year!
what excuse do you plan on coming up with this time to try and explain it, strange how FEers keep on changing their story while globers havent changed their story once since this was announced, or do you think you can admit that you were wrong and that you were lied to by other FEers when they said there is no 24 hour sun and that it is impossible, so who was lying FEers with 0 evidence backing up their claims or globers with multiple shots of the 24 hour sun, live streams, FEers backing it all up and everything
I've always wondered if Time and date, Sun Calc and others simply use historical data (cycles) not actual calculations for each input request. And also flight calculators.
@@monty3322 From Cesium page: “The CesiumSunSky actor is derived from the Sun Position Calculator plugin.” All Cesium data comes from a 3d globe and space model.
ANYONE can go to antarctica and see a 24 hour sun for real.. Not sure why people still love to sit and try to debunk something that can be witnessed for themselves in reality..
The flat earth religion is about remaining wilfully ignorant of everything that falsifies flat earth. That way, you can get to "nu-huh" it on the grounds that you haven't seen it yourself, and therefore get to pretend that it never happened.
If I'm understanding what you have just done, this is augmentation (adding additional elements) into the base video from McKeegan. How would the shadows of the additional elements appear on the ground when studied up close? When I was looking at the footprints in my analysis, some elements (real or augmented) had a very interesting shadow casting on the ground up close. Some shadows followed the contours of the raked-out snow, others seemed to be "painted on" and some were a mixture of both. My thoughts entertain the idea that real footage of the area was captured and then most of the props were added in in video augmentation. This would include the sun and shadows. So, my question would be, does the analysis of the shadows mean anything?
What did you find "interesting" about the shadows? Maybe I can do a different setup that would help your investigation? I thought about trying to place tripod objects in the exact locations of the tripods in the video so that we could directly compare the shadows as the sun goes around, but it's not as easy as it sounds. I could try to do it if you think it would be helpful. The shadows look correct to me at first glance so I've been more focused on looking for differences in the Sun's position vs. the model. And Mount Rossman is really bugging me. I don't understand how the Google and Bing data can be so far off both reality and each other..
@ did you see McToons sundial video? Towards the very end of it, the lighting dims down significantly and the brightens up again. Could that be the delighting and relighting effect that you are mentioning as well?
@LIGHT77-vl6je Yes, I have noticed all of the equipment and what is claimed to be evidence in this whole production. The base footage created the 3D interpretation of the individuals so that the animation software could create shadows with the lighting effect. Blue shadows. The whole sequence is time paced by a motorized equatorial mount that need not necessarily run at 1 rpm per 24 hours to accomplish the scene. It only needs to sync with the lighting effect to suggest the 24 hour results. The sundial question that I posed stemmed from examining the light fading and brightening up frame by frame. I was not able to identify the lead or trailing edge of the clouds that are viewed above. I did notice that this was the last video shot there as the blue shelter with pull out sides was closed up. The light fading and brightening did not look normal to me.
It wasn't. The UN was formed to be a place where every country in the world could meet to discuss their problems, decrease tensions, avoid war, and help with disasters etc.. The Antarctic treaty was over a decade later, and mattered (at least then) to a very small minority of countries. It was created in order to avoid tensions in Antarctica over ownership that *could* lead to hostilities. Not the least being that NOBODY could set up military bases there to attack others. The Americans were scared to death of the Soviets attacking over the South Pole in the late 40s and 50s. if it weren't for the treaty, with the ability for every signatory to inspect anyone else's facilities on demand, there'd be huge airbases on it. There isn't, so it fulfilled the primary goal of the UN - prevent future major wars.
What would really help flat earth when you use unreal5 engine to model the reflection theory with a curved dome, how 'tomb of elumination' and Joe Hanvey predicted. If you need help let me know.
"Does this solar positioning model work on a flat Earth?" -You did a model here that fits how everything should look on a globe, but on a flat Earth, what would you shape Antarctica as since you're using the globe here, and how would you make this observation of the sun work with what the rest of the world saw while they were there?
This is one of your video translated in Italian Language on February 2019 th-cam.com/video/73J6PsPPecw/w-d-xo.htmlsi=_gY4IgCV8r93YOq7 Thanks and happy new year
It will be a very nice thing if you do with Unreal Engine 5 the experiment suggest in this video th-cam.com/video/MxhcKBqbPWM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=xXNQ5I7xTGHwyJbE It has the English subtitles Thank for your patience. dino
@@DinoTinelli_nuovo Dino ma quando la finirai di prendere in giro le persone? Capisco che lo fai per soldi, ma la notte riesci a dormire sapendo che hai rovinato la vita a tante persone con intelligenza scarsa?
To get accurate 3d model data you would actually have to go there and survey the topography, at which point you might as well doan observation of reality rather than creating a 3d model. I appreciate your effort though.
WGS84, given that the current resolution limits are better than 1 meter vertically, would be more than good enough for the topography to be much more accurate enough for this video. [For various reasons, WGS84 would be unlikely to be as accurate over Antarctica generally as it is for the rest of the world, but the Antarctica peninsula and near areas should be top-mapped as well as anything in Antarctica is. That is, after all, where much of the human activity is, including Little America, and main access via Argentina and Chile]
@fromagefrizzbizz9377 WGS84 is just a system, you still need the data. Obviously some data exists for Antarctica but you would need to get hold of it to use it for a model like this, the data they used for this particular model wasn't accurate enough.
@@donjezza WGS84 IS the name of the data set. Even 10m accuracy (which is much worse than WGS84 does normally) is plenty good enough for this model. It is a 3D digital mapping of the globe that is so precise that it can guide you perfectly from say, SYD (Sydney Australia) to SCL (Santiago Chile) and put you smack dab in the center of the runway threshold within a metre without the pilots doing anything. Over a distance that's shorter than any flerf map in existence would indicate. In fact, the flerf gleason map distance is 3 times farther than any aircraft could fly, at a speed of mach 3 or 4. Which no commercial airliner can. Heck, that's what QF27 is flying right now. it lands in Santiago shortly. You could supplement it with data from elsewhere, but I think even the WGS84 by itself is more than good enough even tho it won't be as good for Antarctica as it is elsewhere. Do remember that WGS84 is continuously being updated as data becomes available. It wasn't cast in concrete 40 years ago. I would think that the Antarctica peninsula, the Weddel Sea, and points towards Little America have more than enough flights to warrant it. WGS84 is available to the public, but I imagine they charge a fee to provide it. Unfortunately, my son is not available to comment. He's the real GIS/WGS84 wonk. A masters in geometrics tends to make you that way,
Which is the same, because parallel rays are perceived as divergent due to perspective in reality. I’m honestly confused how you’ve added perspective everywhere it doesn’t belong but totally missed it where it actually matters.
Divergent in reality you say? So it should be very simple to measure their position(angles) from 2 places with a known distance between them. Then use simple math to calculate the distance to the Sun. I wonder why no flerf did it...
The XY plane in Unreal Engine is flat. There is no curvature to the surface. This is a Flat Earth model and matches the predictions made by other Flat Earth models.
@@QBranchSpace then he is lying to you about how he made it to manipulate you. WSG84 does not provide the celestial location of the Sun. It's not an astronomical model.
Here's a list of 15 red flags of TFE fakery (There's a lot more than 15): 1. No Footprints in Frozen Snow: If the snow is truly packed and frozen, footsteps should leave impressions. The complete absence of footprints in the area is highly unusual and suggests the scene may have been staged or filmed in a controlled environment. 2. Easily Handling Frozen Snow with Bare Hands: In sub-zero temperatures, snow that’s packed or frozen would be difficult to handle without gloves or tools. The ease with which snow is picked up with bare hands contradicts the natural cold and physical laws of frozen snow. 3. No Cold Weather Effects (Reddening of Skin, Frostbite Signs): In extremely cold environments, exposed skin (especially the nose, ears, and fingers) reddens or even turns pale due to constricted blood flow. If these effects are missing, it suggests the conditions were not as harsh as they appear. 4. Absence of Frost on Hair, Beards, or Eyebrows: In sub-zero temperatures, frost often accumulates on beards, hair, and eyelashes. A lack of frost buildup suggests the temperature may have been artificially controlled or that the footage was shot in a different environment. 5. No Breath Condensation: In freezing environments, you would expect to see breath condensation as the warm air from the body interacts with the cold air. Its absence could indicate that the scene was filmed in a warmer location, with artificial effects added to make it look cold. 6. No Visible Cold-Weather Gear: In extreme cold, it's almost impossible to function for extended periods without wearing hats, gloves, and thick clothing. If participants are shown without any cold-weather gear, especially in freezing conditions, it suggests either a controlled environment or deliberate falsification of the footage. 7. Too Perfect Weather Conditions: Antarctica is known for extreme winds and unpredictable weather patterns. If the environment in the footage looks calm, clear, and still with no wind, it could be staged or filmed in a more controlled location. 8. Unrealistic Physical Comfort: People in freezing conditions usually show signs of physical discomfort (e.g., shivering, visible body language expressing cold). If they appear to be physically comfortable without any visible distress, it indicates that the footage may not represent real conditions. 9. No Wind or Snow Drift: Antarctica is notorious for its harsh winds, often whipping snow into drifts. The absence of wind or snow drifting in the footage is highly suspicious. Without wind, the landscape would seem unnaturally still, which doesn’t match the environment. 10. Perfectly Still Hair and Clothes: In freezing conditions, hair and clothes should be subject to movement or affected by wind or moisture, especially in outdoor environments. If hair and clothes remain perfectly still, it suggests the environment may have been controlled or filmed in a different, windless location. 11. Artificially Flawless Skin: In extreme cold, skin becomes dry, cracked, and red due to the freezing temperatures. The absence of these common signs of frostbite or dryness, especially on exposed areas like the face or hands, could indicate that the footage was taken in a warm or simulated setting. 12. Lack of Condensation on Cameras or Lenses: In cold environments, cameras and lenses often fog up or develop condensation from the temperature difference between the equipment and the cold air. If there’s no condensation on the lens despite the supposed freezing conditions, it may indicate the footage was captured in a controlled or warm environment. 13. Excessive Focus on Non-Essential Elements: If the footage excessively focuses on trivial elements (like specific actions or facial expressions), it might be a technique used to distract viewers from inconsistencies in the environment or conditions. The framing might deliberately avoid showing more telling environmental elements that would reveal the true nature of the location. 14. Behavioral Inconsistencies: In real cold environments, people usually try to conserve body heat, move briskly, or display signs of discomfort. If participants are moving casually or comfortably without reacting to the cold in natural ways, it suggests that the conditions are not genuine. 15. Abnormal Snow and Ice Sound: Snow and ice in real-world freezing environments make distinct sounds when walked on, touched, or broken. If there’s an absence of these natural sounds or they seem inconsistent with the surroundings, it could be a sign that the snow or ice used in the footage isn’t real or was altered for the purpose of the video. Bonus. 16. Unexplained Changes in the Weather: In such environments, weather changes rapidly and dramatically. If the weather stays consistently clear or calm without the typical sudden shifts in conditions (snowstorms, fog, temperature drops), it might indicate that the footage is from a controlled location rather than a genuine Antarctic environment.
@@QBranchSpace The inconsistencies go beyond just the temperature reading. If the conditions were genuinely mild for Antarctica, the behavior and visuals in the footage should still align with how humans naturally react in such an environment. Instead, it feels overly controlled, raising questions about authenticity and intent."
@@QBranchSpace During "The Final Experiment" in Antarctica, the reported temperature was -12°C (feeling like -20°C) with partly cloudy conditions and winds from the south-southwest at 13 knots, gusting up to 19 knots. "THE FINAL EXPERIMENT" These harsh conditions would typically necessitate appropriate cold-weather gear to prevent frostbite and hypothermia. However, observations from the experiment showed participants handling snow with bare hands and lacking adequate protective clothing, raising questions about the authenticity of the footage. Such inconsistencies suggest that the event may have been staged, potentially to mock and discredit skeptics rather than to provide genuine evidence. True scientific endeavors require transparency, consistency, and independent verification-elements that appear to be lacking in this instance.
@@maxtazykorobov8070only three weather is something that we can't control for so that shouldn't be a red flag. As for the rest of the list? Well, I'd love to see the flat earthers plan their own trip to Antarctica and test out all those red flags themselves. After all, ALE is available for everyone to use
Why don't you go to Antarctica to investigate all these claims on the spot? When do I get to watch your investigation in Antarctica? Give me specific time.
TFE cannot be done with curvature or the atmosphere ( air ) that never lags behind the spinning ground we live on. No aircraft has ever hovered in the air for some time & found itself in a different place because of the earth's spin. I am not aware of any other rocket that shot up straight without any deviations besides the 2014 gofast, amateur rocket that did and eventually hit something up there, we believe, but the globers called the abrupt stop a yo-yo despin. Emergency flight landings make a perfect sense on the AE map to me, the great circle route does not. A few guys go to Antarctica to film a 24 hour sun & claim to have, of course it's faked. I don't even have to see how they did the trickery. Georgia guide stones are detroyed now, peephole gone: if you can't read between the lines here, no one can help you.
"of course it's faked" Go ahead and present your evidence for this claim. And remember, people who make claims without evidence are liars by definition.
@@ReValveiT_01So you believe the gofast rocket did not hit anything up there, it only stopped because of the yo-yo despin effect? Is it not suspicious to you that only one AMATEUR rocket has ever shot up straight without turning in the air? Not even one of the many space agencies has ever done that for any reason in the history of mankind. I know I am waisting my breath on you, ReValveiT. Adios amigo, true logic comes from God.
The gofast rocket did not hit anything. It was a yo-yo despin. You can actually SEE the thing deploy and stop the rocket's rotation. The rest of your posting is just as ignorant.
Sorry I need to point out a major flaw in your depiction, as You state that you're using parallel light rays, ok this is the problem as even within Heliocentrism they don't claim that the light from their Sun is parallel, only that mathematically for the shadows we see in reality to work on a globe of un-measured radius value of 3,959 miles that the light MUST be parallel, this is their claim which is actually contradicted within their own paradigm, but either way they're not actually claiming that Sunlight is parallel they're actually claiming that its divergent that's problem one. Problem two is a much bigger problem as light rays do not exist, they are also just mathematical as light is NOT a ray or a wave its officially claimed to exhibit particle like behaviour, the ray claim comes from the use of software like unreal engine and the wave claim comes from the misunderstanding of the collapse of the wave function, both of which are only mathematical descriptions. So in summary you can't replicate reality in unreal engine good and all that the software is.... I hope this helps....
@@BriansLogic well globers now can’t claim Eratosthenes and eclipses because eclipse requires crepuscular rays and the Eratosthenes requires parallel….
@@QBranchSpace how do you have atmospheric pressure next to the extreme low pressure of space? Can you prove this as a possibility with a controlled demonstration based on the scientific method?
@@BriansLogicYou've forgotten that the elevation angles were wrong for a flat earth when you tried in Geogebra. You never did manage to fix them. I wonder why.
wow so much fork for nothing !=][ i mean you could plaaant a tree or build a pet house for this wasted time its like i aam eeing Duffy grin as watermark on the video ...
The Sun would be tiny in the real timelapse as well if it wasn't for the glare which blows out a much larger part of the frame. As a landscape photographer and astrophotographer, I've noticed people often don't realize how small the Moon and the Sun actually are in the sky because we perceive them as fairly large with the "focal length" of the human eye.
Also, in regards to the shape of the glare and the placement of the Unreal Sun within it, it's good to bear in mind that the Unreal Sun doesn't have to always be directly in the middle of the glare, since the footage is not captured with a tracking camera pointing at the Sun at all times, but with a static 360 camera consisting of two 180 fisheye lens cameras, so there will always be some distortions that will also increase the closer to the edge of the frame of the individual 180 cameras the Sun gets.
Oh wow I didn't realize that about the camera. Now I see it in the video description, oops! Thanks for pointing that out. Now I have to rethink how I lined it up and how I "leveled" the time lapse.
You are a lie itself, no astrophotographer that goddan stupid thing of the sun being small.. What you really are its a FLERF
@@heathcarmody2867 Generally the lense glare would be fairlly symmetric, so I wouldn't worry too much if you're matching centers. You should let the program do the leveling because it should know. Remember, a glacier surface is not perfectly level - because the ice is flowing *downwards* (towards the sea in this case I think), so the sun should match, but the effective horizon formed by the glacier may not, and potentially quite a bit. it should still match fairly well if it has a decent map of nearby elevations (eg: WGS84). But elevation maps of Antarctica are probably STILL not nearly as reliable as elsewhere.. For reasons I mentioned elsewhere.
@@heathcarmody2867 What you could try is try to reduce the glare by turning the brightness way down. In otherwords, imitate a solar filter or welding goggles. Theoretically, this should show the actual edges of the sun. But post-processing may be way too late.
Even if it does, in your simulation everything would be black except the sun, and perhaps some of the ice between the camera and the sun. Which won't be very interesting.
Few people from warmer climates appreciate what it's like during full sun and virtually unbroken ice or snow extending off to the horizon in every direction. Within minutes your eyes start to hurt, and within an hour or two, you can become permanently blind because your eyes have burned out bits of retina. Without looking at the sun directly AT ALL. This is why the TFE people were all wearing very dark sunglasses and never took 'em off. The effect is present in the area I live (only a few hours north of the US border), but not nearly this bad. The Inuit in the far north traditionally took small flattened sticks to cover their eyes, with small narrow carved slits to see out of.
Snow or ice blindness is no more of a joke than staring directly at the sun.
I loved the Jeran quote: "Interesting..."
Thank you Heath! Happy new year! ❤
@@buzzdev Happy new year! 🎊
Great job, the only thing that seems off about Dave's time lapse is the horizontal drift of the sun going back and forth I expected there to be more, but the vertical angles seem on point. Maybe this is due to his camera mount not being completely level like you pointed out or the motor not turning at a precise constant speed. Assuming the motor did turn exactly 15 degrees every hour and their latitude on the map is accurate then it can be calculated how close to spherical or oblate the earth is.
Nice ending - made me laugh.
FLAT EARTHER: "I would rather try proving globe can be faked, RATHER THAN PROVING A FLAT EARTH WITH POSITIVE EVIDENCE."
The number of flerfs that have successfully explained the TFE observations but for a flat earth remains at zero.
Instead we get "green screen!", "blue shadows!" etc.
Numpties.
@@QBranchSpace It does make for great comedy though. Everyday I have something new to watch and laugh at. I want them to keep it up so folks like Creeky, SciManDan and McToon can continue to bring us smiles as they point out the absurdity of the new claims and theories about the space pizza under a dome... or was it a disk inside a snowglobe? Ah, doesn't matter, either one is funny.
@TheDainerss I saw one today which was something like "the TFE timelapse couldn't have been 24 hours because it was all in daytime"
I got a big laugh out of that.
How do these people even function in life?
@@QBranchSpaceyou made that up didn't you?😂 No one could of posted something that ridiculous unless they were joking.
@@Loophole23742if I didn't see the same post I saw one just like it
Great work
I wanted to do something similar in Blender to highlight Dubay's misunderstanding of shadows. Looks like you put a decent amount of work into this. Good job.
There are only 3 models of REALIY that explain night & day.
1- Spinning balls - Helio or Geo-centrism.
2- Horizontal circles - Pizza Dome-ism.
3- Virtual Realm - Equidistant Circles Based on Latitude.
We live in a virtual realm, and the map (coordinate system) is stereographic. The plane of Earth is fixed & immovable. There is no curvature, no gravity, no dome, and no ice wall...
Earth has 4 corners and 2 polar rotations. All of the luminaries in the sky are being rendered locally to each individual observer's circle of sight (eyes, cameras, etc.)...
The only working map and model of REALITY - Stereographic co-ordinate system by Awake Souls. Look up video -"Stereographic virtual reality EXPLAINED! How the only working map and model of REALITY works".
This way you can say for certain this is definitely _Unreal._ 🤣
Nice work!! And we know that the "world" in un real is like qtr algorithm... i mind is calculating a flat world... byt the sky as a dome?
No se te entiende una mierda en ingles.
Ya le pasamos resumen de tus opiniones y las de Martín sobre Jeran "errando" ...veremos qué te dice en 'globebusters'😂...tendrás que chuparle bien el pito esta vez
very cool
3:07 elevation angle to the Sun, you’re going to need a flat plane for that.
Nope. I can measure an elevation angle between two mountains if I so choose, and all the flerf derp on the planet isn't going to stop me.
@ the video isn’t about mountains, but since since the height of those mountains is in relation to sea level you’re going to need a flat plane for that too.
@@scooternutmick Sea level isn't a flat plane either.
@ you should call it sea curve if you’re referring to the globe you pretend to live on. Your imagination is the only place level means curved.
@@scooternutmick Level is correct, since level is to do with gravity. Sea level is an equipotential surface of the Earth's gravity field.
You could look this stuff up, you know.
Thee ol dumb idea of .. "they did it all in a huge indoor dome studio.!." ...instead of the most obvious, and simple.
the truth is that the TFE team did in fact went down there and became eye witnesses of the 24 hour sunny sky event...which btw was so much easier and cheaper for them to merely take a flight down into Antarctica, and stay at union glacier for 3 days, which they did, and so much simpler merely to set up tripods with 10 cameras to record the 24 sun event ...as opposed to spending millions of dollars on building a huge indoor screen dome super structure ~ NAW ~
get real.
Oh yes, because companies always spend millions of dollars just to make sure some little TH-cam content creators can see a 24-hour sun. They do it all the time, didn't you know. I bet if you scheduled a trip down there right now, they would also spend millions to resetup this miraculous fully immersive sound stage to fool you too. Sounds plausible right?????
@@TheDainerss
well no, Will Duffy is just church pastor not a multimillion dollar company, at any rate, I doubt he wanted to spend millions of dollars going about to build a high huge super dome just to deceive the public. I mean why would he risk the exposure?
no, the whole thing was just to invite a few flat earthers and globers down there with him , merely to record the 24 hour sun event, which was not too difficult a thing to do, (just fly down there and record what is actually going on...duh~)
and thus we saw the proof of the midnight sun during his live stream and later from McKeegan's time lapse work. and there was Critical think's weight experiment. and Mctoon's sun dial shadow time lapse, so it appears that they did as much as they could do in such a short amount of time.
And subsequently, it seems to me that Will Duffy already knew that he had a winner in hand before going down there, without doing much more than taking cameras and laptops and sky link equipment, and immediately did a bit of live streaming while he was at it. Even flew his drone a mile up over the Union Glacier area. which was quite impressive. (didn't see any large dome building down there though)
To boot a few flat earthers were also there -- who also saw the same non setting sun event and even made a video record of it for themselves, and frankly confessed what they saw, by youtube live stream no less. hardly would they give in to be in on the gag when we know that Jeran and Austin were so strong for the FE position.
Well with them only having three days, I find it impossible to think that they could build anything 360 degrees round large and high aka dome like super structure with so much heavy equipment to make it all happen taken with them, and breaking is all down, when they were not allow to bring that much weight on board the flight in the first place.
its just too short amount of time, and too much money, much less ship all that material into Antarctica to do that much work is far too unrealistic to imagine. I mean why not simply take your own cameras down there and point it at the sky for 24 hours for 3 -4 days? seems simple enough.
again, naw, it appears to me that they mainly walked around outdoors crunching in their snowy footsteps, wearing winter sun glasses for all those hours, checking to make sure their cameras were working right, upon their 8 to 10 tripods.
of course it works, they also use unreal at the virtual production studio :)
Esse "experimento" na antártica foi tão real que parece fake 😂
Poderíamos voltar à Antártica e repetir o experimento em um nano segundo mas perdemos aquela tecnologia 📺
In 1960s the go to the moon to make us believe we live on a waterball, in 2025 they go to antarctica to make us believe we live on a waterball and some people believe it.
@MATTINCALI They including few flat earthers (that suddenly all of you hate for going to test their claims)
@ImieNazwiskoOKI don't hate anyone.
I knew jeran and austin were shills for as long as I've seen them. You can tell by their behavior usually pretty easily.
Do any flat earthers or globers, on youtube, behave like normal people to you?
The whole southern half of the world does not exist to the point you have to go to antarctica to see the sun's path there, you will probably pretend that is not meaningful.
@@MATTINCALI Still you continue to insist on calling planet earth a "waterball", despite being told countless times that earth's total mass is made up of about 0.02% water.
Ignorance or lies, or both? It's not a good look for you, fella.
The difference is that this still looks totally fake, despite all your efforts. TFE looks real because it is.
Bubbbut...... it's all recorded inside a Las Vegas kind of Sphere studio spread out over thousands of acres of Samsung LCD displays. /s
108 degree field of view, does that translate to roughly 15mm focal length?
I wonder if the shape of the sun (glare) gets distorted as it travels across the sky in a stationary camera.
Might not if that is screen space post effect, but it does for me (in Blender) if I create 360 images and bake the post effect into the image.
Maybe add "permission to use" if any of the debunkers want to use it. And they have that permission of course. This was very well done.
Its a program
And it is a OBSERVATION
Models and reality
Yet reality keeps insisting on matching that pesky globe model.
So actually not an experiment then.
@@garnet4846 The essence of an experiment is to make a hypotheses, then test the hypothesis.
Hypothesis : If earth is a globe, according to the globe model, there should be a 24h sun in Antarctica at angles of 13º and 34º at solar midnight and solar noon respectively on the December 15th.
Test : Go to Antarctica on December 15th and see if this is the case or not.
So 100% an experiment. Not that it matters either way - your desperate little "gotcha" attempt is lamer that two lame things in a pod.
@@garnet4846 The essence of an experiment is to make a hypotheses, then test the hypothesis.
Hypothesis : If earth is a globe, according to the globe model, there should be a 24h sun in Antarctica at angles of 13º and 34º at solar midnight and solar noon respectively on the December 15th.
Test : Go to Antarctica on December 15th and see if this is the case or not.
This spherical model on UE5 is excellent! The simulation aligns perfectly with the observations. Great job!
UE5 is flat. Lol
@@skyisthelimitreadyornotfor2
UE is a 3D environment and you can simulate whatever you want.
SPECIFICALLY, Cesium ion Earth for UNREAL ENGINE is a 3D GLOBE EARTH MODEL.
the entire point of the video is @5:58 he had to adjust to "apparent flat" or zero radius....sorry but according to the WGS84 standard, the radius of the Earth at the equator (semi-major axis) is approximately 6,378,137 meters... not zero
@@inTruthbyGrace
The video is simulating the 24h sun observed by McKeegan with a 3d globe earth.
End of story. The modification of the radius is not relevant.
The camera is showing a local observation. Changing the radius of the spherical model doesn’t impact much.
Starting with a globe model rotating on its axis and orbiting the Sun, if I change the radius of the Earth while keeping all angular velocities the same, a local observer on Earth’s surface wouldn’t notice any difference in the Sun’s position.
Changing the radius of the Globe Earth doesn’t affect the observation of the Sun’s position, as it’s irrelevant to the dynamics governing the apparent motion in the sky.
See Gee Eye 😁
All joking aside: nice job. This model is pretty close to reality. I have tried similar thing with the sun and the moon in Flight Simulator, Outerra, or Space Engine and I didn't got this close.
It will never cease to amaze me how people will still claim TFE was faked
Sounds like you believe astronauts played golf on the moon 😂
@@GrantH2606 They have to; TFE proves that the Earth isn't flat, and flerfs are too tied to their delusion to let go. They can't argue against the observations so their only choice is to claim fakery.
@@CameronGraves-ly2ih Yes, astronaut Alan Shepard played golf on the moon during the Apollo 14 mission in February 1971
@@GrantH2606 thanks for the laughs. Have a nice day 😊
@@GrantH2606Isn't it odd that flerfs are also moon-landing deniers? Landing on a Moon that is as close as it has to be for a flat earth should be easy.
ok... please tell me if I am correct?
I had to sit down with this one and investigate some unfamiliar vocabulary terms.. for those of you who (like me) do not know them, the definitions of these things are below.
The punchline appears to be @5:58 and @6:14: the only way this would render consistent with what is observed in TFE videos is IF the "Cesium globe" plugin (which is the WGS84) is modified to a null (or zero) radius sphere.. ie "flat"... while the sky uses UE5's sun positioning system which is "directional light' inside a sky sphere only capable of generating one real user experience at a time (like it can only replicate one person's view walking view of the sun setting on the beach at a time.. not two)...
my conclusion: the is the 3d model to replicate what TFE actually observed requires a zero radius surface (flat earth) using sun positioning in a dome sky (firmament)
*_Unreal Engine 5_* is a powerful 3D game development tool created by Epic Games, which allows developers to create highly realistic and detailed virtual worlds with features like "Nanite" for managing complex geometry and "Lumen" for dynamic lighting and reflections in real-time; essentially considered the most advanced game engine currently available for creating immersive gaming experiences.
*_Cesium 3D_* is a plugin for the Unreal Engine 5 that provides the technology to render a "geospatial ecosystem for game engines"
*_The WGS84 ellipsoid_* is a model that approximates the shape of the Earth, which is not perfectly spherical. The ellipsoid has a defined radius at the equator and is flattened at the top. The WGS84 ellipsoid's origin is the geometric center of the coordinate system, and the Z-axis is the rotational axis.
what would it look like if you ran the exact same model using a 4K mile radius sphere?
Excellent comment! To clarify though, the Cesium globe doesn't need to be modified for the Sun to work. It works just the same when modified to be flat or globe, and it was actually in globe state for this demonstration.
Technically the Cesium globe is a 4k mile radius sphere that just needs to be rotated so that your location (origin) is always the "top" of the sphere in Unreal's static coordinate system (Z axis UP). The single observer thing has more to do with only having a single gravity vector. So if in a simulation or game, I start at the top and walk a quarter way around the Earth, the directional light would be still lighting the ground from the right angle, but I would be standing parallel to the ground or falling off the "side" of the Earth. If that makes any sense. In other words, to simulate a true globe model, you need to rotate the physical globe and have a gravity vector pointing to the center of the Earth. I'm not aware of any sims or games in Unreal that attempt to do this, at least not on a full scale Earth. Even that would still require a directional light, because a 93 million mile away "point light" Sun would never work.
For a flat Earth, the effective radius would be infinity, not zero.
No, your conclusion is wrong because your premises are wrong. He didn’t set the radius to 0, he said he can set it to 0 if he wants to make it look like a flat earth, but you can see it’s set to 6371 km for this demonstration.
@@QBranchSpace yeah... that makes sense. Thank you.
Chat GPT response lol
this is the video that shows you, you cant fake it with this cgi
It would be really cool if you could simulate the north and south poles at the same time where the north pole is dark 24 hours and the south has 24-hour sun, all on the same flat earth.
Man, that one simulation would put all this controversy to an end. Wait, you can't do that.
Or even better simulation how the southern hemisphere rotates clockwise and the north rotates counterclockwise.
These two simulations would put an end to the globe earth, so why dont you get on that.
What make you think that a simulation with no physical meaning would put an end to the globe earth? When the globe earth works perfectly as it is?
@fedelusion That's my point. This kid is a dbag
It would be quite pointless. Do you know why? While the Antarctic is in 24 hour sun, the Arctic is in 24 hour darkness, and there's no sun to track. Boring video.
@fromagefrizzbizz9377 Stars. Like i said.
@@zantar2482 why bother simulating it, then? Don’t have to simulate to photograph it.
This is a typical response to any kind of evidence you show to conteo believers: "it is fake"
It LITERALLY IS.
This doesn't look anything like the real thing, good attempt though.
There is no 24 hour sun. #DONE
There are 2 patients in a mental institution, one says to the other, 'The Earth is flat ya know' and the other says, 'no that's false but you know what isn't false? Christianity, yeah, one day the world will end and we will all go to heaven and the horrible none believers, well, they go to hell.
That was a CGI sham they did, *not* "an observation." By calling it the latter, you are affirming to be true something that isn't.
When Bob Knodel was living he spoke a lot about the WGS84 model and how it is manipulated to presupposed the globe instead of what is actually measured.
He also said they measured a 15 degree per hour drift.
@@Adrena1inI wonder why he never mentioned the axis of rotation of that 15°/hour.
Well, it's too bad that the late Bob knodel was a garbage surveyor because geodetic and land surveyors regularly use wgs84 as their reference ellipsoid. So I'd say that it is pretty darn accurate to what is measured
@@QBranchSpace He wasn't smart enough to try.
Seriously.
He produced a video afterwards where he admitted to being completely stumped as to why the 15 degrees was calculated as the sum of the drifts directly read off the three axes of rotation of the device itself - and NONE of them were showing a 15 degree rotation individually.
He held his right hand up next to a globe, with his fingers curved, and his thumb sticking up and said the three readings seem to be showing that it's moving "this way"- his hand was pushed forward at an angle above the equator and his hand curling anti-clockwise a bit. As if he was sliding his hand from the center around the upper right hand side of a ball.
Well, duh, that was the point, and exactly what one would expect! The ONLY points where ONE axis would show 15 degrees (and the other two zero) are at the poles or directly on the equator. Because the device itself is rotating with the earth either vertically or horizontally to the RLG being locally level. Between the equator and poles, the 15 degree drift would be the sum of all three.
If he had been smart enough, he would have rotated the device *itself* a bit to get only one axis showing rotation. At this point, the axis showing rotation is exactly perpendicular to the pole axis, and north is perpendicular to that.
He couldn't think of it literally. Whereas I would have, because I'd been playing with the three-axis accelerometers on my smart phone, and when you adjust the angle the phone is pointing to zero out two of the axis, the phone is pointing due north and south. Without having to bother with compass declination (degrees to which a magnetic compass deviates from true north).
RLGs would make great compasses and don't have to be adjusted to something that changes around the world and in time. But the cost is prohibitive.
☺
Well done, this is pretty impressive work 👍 The green screen "proof" really made my day :D
Your simulation didn't match 100% perfect... so obviously the earth is flat :P 99.9% isn't good enough.
And if he gets 100% match, then the flerfs claim it as proof that TFE was faked with
@@IAmSomeTreyGuy if this simulation were as good as the TFE video, then the flerfs would wag their finger and holler that the simulation was proof it could all be a staged psyop. lol
Do you have the alleged tilt of the earth included within your calculations?
@@tabooconspiracy I don't do any calculations to make this work besides figuring out the speed that the simulation needs to run at to match the video speed. The sun position is calculated internally and I couldn't tell you exactly how, but it's likely the same as what tools like suncalc use, and it likely involves Earth's alleged tilt. Remember that this is a moving sun projected on a dome across a locally flat Earth, but I can't say that a rotating sphere Earth and stationary Sun would yield different results, it's just nearly impossible to model that way for performance reasons. Maybe I will give it a shot sometime though.
Anyway, I hope you are doing well and Happy New Year!
what excuse do you plan on coming up with this time to try and explain it, strange how FEers keep on changing their story while globers havent changed their story once since this was announced, or do you think you can admit that you were wrong and that you were lied to by other FEers when they said there is no 24 hour sun and that it is impossible, so who was lying FEers with 0 evidence backing up their claims or globers with multiple shots of the 24 hour sun, live streams, FEers backing it all up and everything
@@heathcarmody2867 Thank you and happy new year to you!
I've always wondered if Time and date, Sun Calc and others simply use historical data (cycles) not actual calculations for each input request. And also flight calculators.
@@monty3322
From Cesium page:
“The CesiumSunSky actor is derived from the Sun Position Calculator plugin.”
All Cesium data comes from a 3d globe and space model.
ANYONE can go to antarctica and see a 24 hour sun for real.. Not sure why people still love to sit and try to debunk something that can be witnessed for themselves in reality..
The flat earth religion is about remaining wilfully ignorant of everything that falsifies flat earth. That way, you can get to "nu-huh" it on the grounds that you haven't seen it yourself, and therefore get to pretend that it never happened.
Yes, and masons played golf on the moon!
If I'm understanding what you have just done, this is augmentation (adding additional elements) into the base video from McKeegan. How would the shadows of the additional elements appear on the ground when studied up close? When I was looking at the footprints in my analysis, some elements (real or augmented) had a very interesting shadow casting on the ground up close. Some shadows followed the contours of the raked-out snow, others seemed to be "painted on" and some were a mixture of both. My thoughts entertain the idea that real footage of the area was captured and then most of the props were added in in video augmentation. This would include the sun and shadows. So, my question would be, does the analysis of the shadows mean anything?
What did you find "interesting" about the shadows? Maybe I can do a different setup that would help your investigation? I thought about trying to place tripod objects in the exact locations of the tripods in the video so that we could directly compare the shadows as the sun goes around, but it's not as easy as it sounds. I could try to do it if you think it would be helpful. The shadows look correct to me at first glance so I've been more focused on looking for differences in the Sun's position vs. the model. And Mount Rossman is really bugging me. I don't understand how the Google and Bing data can be so far off both reality and each other..
@LIGHT77-vl6je Thanks for the advice.
@ did you see McToons sundial video? Towards the very end of it, the lighting dims down significantly and the brightens up again. Could that be the delighting and relighting effect that you are mentioning as well?
Clutching at straws much? Running out of copium?
@LIGHT77-vl6je Yes, I have noticed all of the equipment and what is claimed to be evidence in this whole production. The base footage created the 3D interpretation of the individuals so that the animation software could create shadows with the lighting effect. Blue shadows. The whole sequence is time paced by a motorized equatorial mount that need not necessarily run at 1 rpm per 24 hours to accomplish the scene. It only needs to sync with the lighting effect to suggest the 24 hour results.
The sundial question that I posed stemmed from examining the light fading and brightening up frame by frame. I was not able to identify the lead or trailing edge of the clouds that are viewed above. I did notice that this was the last video shot there as the blue shelter with pull out sides was closed up. The light fading and brightening did not look normal to me.
Does anyone here know why the UN was formed in order to make Antarctica international territory? What prompted it? Who discovered it first?
It wasn't. The UN was formed to be a place where every country in the world could meet to discuss their problems, decrease tensions, avoid war, and help with disasters etc..
The Antarctic treaty was over a decade later, and mattered (at least then) to a very small minority of countries. It was created in order to avoid tensions in Antarctica over ownership that *could* lead to hostilities. Not the least being that NOBODY could set up military bases there to attack others.
The Americans were scared to death of the Soviets attacking over the South Pole in the late 40s and 50s. if it weren't for the treaty, with the ability for every signatory to inspect anyone else's facilities on demand, there'd be huge airbases on it. There isn't, so it fulfilled the primary goal of the UN - prevent future major wars.
What would really help flat earth when you use unreal5 engine to model the reflection theory with a curved dome, how 'tomb of elumination' and Joe Hanvey predicted. If you need help let me know.
There's no sun reflecting off a magic invisible dome, stop being complete nutcases.
Would you mind picking any location on the Earth and telling me the time of sunset Joe Hanvey's model predicts for that location tomorrow?
@-ion hey don't ask them hard questions that's not fair🤣
"Does this solar positioning model work on a flat Earth?" -You did a model here that fits how everything should look on a globe, but on a flat Earth, what would you shape Antarctica as since you're using the globe here, and how would you make this observation of the sun work with what the rest of the world saw while they were there?
You could easily get a job at NASA... Nice job!
/yawn
NASA doesn't hire idiots
This is one of your video translated in Italian Language on February 2019 th-cam.com/video/73J6PsPPecw/w-d-xo.htmlsi=_gY4IgCV8r93YOq7
Thanks and happy new year
It will be a very nice thing if you do with Unreal Engine 5 the experiment suggest in this video th-cam.com/video/MxhcKBqbPWM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=xXNQ5I7xTGHwyJbE
It has the English subtitles
Thank for your patience.
dino
@@DinoTinelli_nuovo Dino ma quando la finirai di prendere in giro le persone? Capisco che lo fai per soldi, ma la notte riesci a dormire sapendo che hai rovinato la vita a tante persone con intelligenza scarsa?
dino, ancora a sparare cazzate?
To get accurate 3d model data you would actually have to go there and survey the topography, at which point you might as well doan observation of reality rather than creating a 3d model. I appreciate your effort though.
WGS84, given that the current resolution limits are better than 1 meter vertically, would be more than good enough for the topography to be much more accurate enough for this video.
[For various reasons, WGS84 would be unlikely to be as accurate over Antarctica generally as it is for the rest of the world, but the Antarctica peninsula and near areas should be top-mapped as well as anything in Antarctica is. That is, after all, where much of the human activity is, including Little America, and main access via Argentina and Chile]
@fromagefrizzbizz9377 WGS84 is just a system, you still need the data. Obviously some data exists for Antarctica but you would need to get hold of it to use it for a model like this, the data they used for this particular model wasn't accurate enough.
@@donjezza WGS84 IS the name of the data set.
Even 10m accuracy (which is much worse than WGS84 does normally) is plenty good enough for this model.
It is a 3D digital mapping of the globe that is so precise that it can guide you perfectly from say, SYD (Sydney Australia) to SCL (Santiago Chile) and put you smack dab in the center of the runway threshold within a metre without the pilots doing anything. Over a distance that's shorter than any flerf map in existence would indicate. In fact, the flerf gleason map distance is 3 times farther than any aircraft could fly, at a speed of mach 3 or 4. Which no commercial airliner can.
Heck, that's what QF27 is flying right now. it lands in Santiago shortly.
You could supplement it with data from elsewhere, but I think even the WGS84 by itself is more than good enough even tho it won't be as good for Antarctica as it is elsewhere.
Do remember that WGS84 is continuously being updated as data becomes available. It wasn't cast in concrete 40 years ago. I would think that the Antarctica peninsula, the Weddel Sea, and points towards Little America have more than enough flights to warrant it.
WGS84 is available to the public, but I imagine they charge a fee to provide it.
Unfortunately, my son is not available to comment. He's the real GIS/WGS84 wonk. A masters in geometrics tends to make you that way,
Thanks for debunking yourself using a globe earth model who perfectly with the observations made in the FTE
Is the replicating parallel sun rays like the heliocentric model claims? Or are they divergent like we see in reality?
Surely the difference should be readily visible?
Which is the same, because parallel rays are perceived as divergent due to perspective in reality.
I’m honestly confused how you’ve added perspective everywhere it doesn’t belong but totally missed it where it actually matters.
Divergent in reality you say?
So it should be very simple to measure their position(angles) from 2 places with a known distance between them. Then use simple math to calculate the distance to the Sun.
I wonder why no flerf did it...
See my comment I clear it up....
@@QBranchSpace the question went over your head
This garbage looks fake becase its fake, TFE look real because there was REAL. You flerfs are pathetic😂😂
You can tell its real because it looks so fake
The XY plane in Unreal Engine is flat. There is no curvature to the surface. This is a Flat Earth model and matches the predictions made by other Flat Earth models.
He is using the Cesium plug-in which is a WGS84 globe model.
Incorrect! Once again, a flerf does no actual research into the topic before making wild assumptions. He is using the Cesium plug-in.
Which FE model shows the sun to the south of latitude s80?
Wgs84. Looks like a popular reference ellipsoid for land and geodetic surveyors around the world
@@QBranchSpace then he is lying to you about how he made it to manipulate you. WSG84 does not provide the celestial location of the Sun. It's not an astronomical model.
Here's a list of 15 red flags of TFE fakery (There's a lot more than 15):
1. No Footprints in Frozen Snow: If the snow is truly packed and frozen, footsteps should leave impressions. The complete absence of footprints in the area is highly unusual and suggests the scene may have been staged or filmed in a controlled environment.
2. Easily Handling Frozen Snow with Bare Hands: In sub-zero temperatures, snow that’s packed or frozen would be difficult to handle without gloves or tools. The ease with which snow is picked up with bare hands contradicts the natural cold and physical laws of frozen snow.
3. No Cold Weather Effects (Reddening of Skin, Frostbite Signs): In extremely cold environments, exposed skin (especially the nose, ears, and fingers) reddens or even turns pale due to constricted blood flow. If these effects are missing, it suggests the conditions were not as harsh as they appear.
4. Absence of Frost on Hair, Beards, or Eyebrows: In sub-zero temperatures, frost often accumulates on beards, hair, and eyelashes. A lack of frost buildup suggests the temperature may have been artificially controlled or that the footage was shot in a different environment.
5. No Breath Condensation: In freezing environments, you would expect to see breath condensation as the warm air from the body interacts with the cold air. Its absence could indicate that the scene was filmed in a warmer location, with artificial effects added to make it look cold.
6. No Visible Cold-Weather Gear: In extreme cold, it's almost impossible to function for extended periods without wearing hats, gloves, and thick clothing. If participants are shown without any cold-weather gear, especially in freezing conditions, it suggests either a controlled environment or deliberate falsification of the footage.
7. Too Perfect Weather Conditions: Antarctica is known for extreme winds and unpredictable weather patterns. If the environment in the footage looks calm, clear, and still with no wind, it could be staged or filmed in a more controlled location.
8. Unrealistic Physical Comfort: People in freezing conditions usually show signs of physical discomfort (e.g., shivering, visible body language expressing cold). If they appear to be physically comfortable without any visible distress, it indicates that the footage may not represent real conditions.
9. No Wind or Snow Drift: Antarctica is notorious for its harsh winds, often whipping snow into drifts. The absence of wind or snow drifting in the footage is highly suspicious. Without wind, the landscape would seem unnaturally still, which doesn’t match the environment.
10. Perfectly Still Hair and Clothes: In freezing conditions, hair and clothes should be subject to movement or affected by wind or moisture, especially in outdoor environments. If hair and clothes remain perfectly still, it suggests the environment may have been controlled or filmed in a different, windless location.
11. Artificially Flawless Skin: In extreme cold, skin becomes dry, cracked, and red due to the freezing temperatures. The absence of these common signs of frostbite or dryness, especially on exposed areas like the face or hands, could indicate that the footage was taken in a warm or simulated setting.
12. Lack of Condensation on Cameras or Lenses: In cold environments, cameras and lenses often fog up or develop condensation from the temperature difference between the equipment and the cold air. If there’s no condensation on the lens despite the supposed freezing conditions, it may indicate the footage was captured in a controlled or warm environment.
13. Excessive Focus on Non-Essential Elements: If the footage excessively focuses on trivial elements (like specific actions or facial expressions), it might be a technique used to distract viewers from inconsistencies in the environment or conditions. The framing might deliberately avoid showing more telling environmental elements that would reveal the true nature of the location.
14. Behavioral Inconsistencies: In real cold environments, people usually try to conserve body heat, move briskly, or display signs of discomfort. If participants are moving casually or comfortably without reacting to the cold in natural ways, it suggests that the conditions are not genuine.
15. Abnormal Snow and Ice Sound: Snow and ice in real-world freezing environments make distinct sounds when walked on, touched, or broken. If there’s an absence of these natural sounds or they seem inconsistent with the surroundings, it could be a sign that the snow or ice used in the footage isn’t real or was altered for the purpose of the video.
Bonus.
16. Unexplained Changes in the Weather: In such environments, weather changes rapidly and dramatically. If the weather stays consistently clear or calm without the typical sudden shifts in conditions (snowstorms, fog, temperature drops), it might indicate that the footage is from a controlled location rather than a genuine Antarctic environment.
@@QBranchSpace The inconsistencies go beyond just the temperature reading. If the conditions were genuinely mild for Antarctica, the behavior and visuals in the footage should still align with how humans naturally react in such an environment. Instead, it feels overly controlled, raising questions about authenticity and intent."
@@QBranchSpace During "The Final Experiment" in Antarctica, the reported temperature was -12°C (feeling like -20°C) with partly cloudy conditions and winds from the south-southwest at 13 knots, gusting up to 19 knots.
"THE FINAL EXPERIMENT"
These harsh conditions would typically necessitate appropriate cold-weather gear to prevent frostbite and hypothermia.
However, observations from the experiment showed participants handling snow with bare hands and lacking adequate protective clothing, raising questions about the authenticity of the footage.
Such inconsistencies suggest that the event may have been staged, potentially to mock and discredit skeptics rather than to provide genuine evidence.
True scientific endeavors require transparency, consistency, and independent verification-elements that appear to be lacking in this instance.
@@maxtazykorobov8070only three weather is something that we can't control for so that shouldn't be a red flag. As for the rest of the list? Well, I'd love to see the flat earthers plan their own trip to Antarctica and test out all those red flags themselves. After all, ALE is available for everyone to use
Go there yourself.
Why don't you go to Antarctica to investigate all these claims on the spot? When do I get to watch your investigation in Antarctica? Give me specific time.
TFE cannot be done with curvature or the atmosphere ( air ) that never lags behind the spinning ground we live on. No aircraft has ever hovered in the air for some time & found itself in a different place because of the earth's spin. I am not aware of any other rocket that shot up straight without any deviations besides the 2014 gofast, amateur rocket that did and eventually hit something up there, we believe, but the globers called the abrupt stop a yo-yo despin.
Emergency flight landings make a perfect sense on the AE map to me, the great circle route does not.
A few guys go to Antarctica to film a 24 hour sun & claim to have, of course it's faked. I don't even have to see how they did the trickery.
Georgia guide stones are detroyed now, peephole gone: if you can't read between the lines here, no one can help you.
"of course it's faked"
Go ahead and present your evidence for this claim. And remember, people who make claims without evidence are liars by definition.
Tell us you don't understand basic physics, without telling us you don't understand basic physics.
@@ReValveiT_01So you believe the gofast rocket did not hit anything up there, it only stopped because of the yo-yo despin effect?
Is it not suspicious to you that only one AMATEUR rocket has ever shot up straight without turning in the air?
Not even one of the many space agencies has ever done that for any reason in the history of mankind.
I know I am waisting my breath on you, ReValveiT.
Adios amigo, true logic comes from God.
The gofast rocket did not hit anything. It was a yo-yo despin. You can actually SEE the thing deploy and stop the rocket's rotation. The rest of your posting is just as ignorant.
Sorry I need to point out a major flaw in your depiction, as You state that you're using parallel light rays, ok this is the problem as even within Heliocentrism they don't claim that the light from their Sun is parallel, only that mathematically for the shadows we see in reality to work on a globe of un-measured radius value of 3,959 miles that the light MUST be parallel, this is their claim which is actually contradicted within their own paradigm, but either way they're not actually claiming that Sunlight is parallel they're actually claiming that its divergent that's problem one.
Problem two is a much bigger problem as light rays do not exist, they are also just mathematical as light is NOT a ray or a wave its officially claimed to exhibit particle like behaviour, the ray claim comes from the use of software like unreal engine and the wave claim comes from the misunderstanding of the collapse of the wave function, both of which are only mathematical descriptions.
So in summary you can't replicate reality in unreal engine good and all that the software is.... I hope this helps....
Is that why you couldn't replicate flat earth Polaris elevations in Geogebra?
@ There’s only flat earth elevation angles, and I did see my debate with McToon :)
@@BriansLogic well globers now can’t claim Eratosthenes and eclipses because eclipse requires crepuscular rays and the Eratosthenes requires parallel….
@@QBranchSpace how do you have atmospheric pressure next to the extreme low pressure of space? Can you prove this as a possibility with a controlled demonstration based on the scientific method?
@@BriansLogicYou've forgotten that the elevation angles were wrong for a flat earth when you tried in Geogebra. You never did manage to fix them. I wonder why.
wow so much fork for nothing !=][ i mean you could plaaant a tree or build a pet house for this wasted time its like i aam eeing Duffy grin as watermark on the video ...