Easy. The sun is overwhelming the camera to the point that the clouds, despite being infront of the sun, aren't visible.

Much like a mosquito flying infront of a light bulb will become invisible, because the light bulb overwhelms your eyes ability to detect the mosquito.

He can try to say it's not being overwhelmed, but it is. You can see the clouds dramatically lose their visibility when the sun goes by them.

..so, mental gymnastics?

You've never seen a bug go infront of a lightbulb before?

Care to show a similar case?

... Of a bug going by a lightbulb?

No, a mosquitoes, to be exact....

Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1Khvineq2Q

Also notice how the part of the cage infront of the light is difficult to see because the light overwhlems the camera?

This is physically impossible for you to not understand ... do you seriously think that in one of these images the moon is behind the branches of the tree and in the other it's in front of the tree? Is this the limited capacity you have for critical thought?

http://imgur.com/1zUrUIV

http://imgur.com/JG4UxAj

Huh?

It's the exact example as shown in the video? How are you confused? Seriously?

How is it?

Because in one example you can clearly see the branches in front of the moon and in the other the overexposure of the moon makes it appear as if the branches go behind it?

Did you even look at the images, or are you using some kind of text to speech software designed for blind people?

Not seeing how this relates....

You don't see how an example of the exact effect occurring in the OP relates to the OP? How is this even possible?

Still not seeing it... Shitty example... Next...

TIL that an exact example which provides an explanation for an effect that has people asking questions is a "shitty example" according to some people.

Apparently in this case the head of the statue magically moved behind the moon over the course of a few seconds:

http://imgur.com/LWC5r3d

http://imgur.com/XNSUx00

This is mindbogglingly simple, the fact that you don't understand it is highly questionable.

Pretty shitty example, not seeing it.... Better evidence?

You're being too obvious.

I'm still not seeing it.. Can you be a bit more clear?

It's hard to be more clear than providing exact examples of what is occurring in the OP due to overexposed highlights. The fact that you can't understand a photographic phenomenon that has existed for as long as photography has existed and has specific terminology and literature dating back to the 1930s is incredibly strange, pretty sad.

Yeah, not seeing the examples.. Can you be more specific? Thankssssss....

Can't show something to somebody who intentionally stays in darkness. At least this discussion has been enlightening for one of us, very sad and extremely troubling, but enlightening.

It's one of his standard tactics... when the evidence he asks for is provided, he immediately resorts to repeating a straight denial over and over again, hoping you'll give up.

"Show me evidence!"

[evidence provided]

"Nope, not seeing it... show me evidence"

[rinse and repeat]

I don't think he gets how stupid it makes him look.

yeah his just fucking with you man

Isn't it more the point that clouds are in front of the Sun but also behind the Sun? Clearly there are instances where a jet begins to descend down through the clouds and still some part of the aircraft is still enveloped in the clouds, say the tail section.

Can you clarify?

A cloud cannot be simulatenously infront, and behind the sun.

My eyes must be playing tricks on me and I mean that sincerely because it sure looks like that is what he filmed. Can you give me your opinion on this fast 1 minute + video?

Just came across this one yesterday and it has me stumped:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VJOl67RhpU

Looks like a setting sun.

What's the problem?

The Sun looks like it is sitting right there in the clouds next to them.

Looks like it, but it's not.

The sun can appear to be below the cloud line if it's sunset where you are - But as others around the world will attest - The sun isn't about to touch the Earth.

The jet is at 28,000 ft and the Sun orb sure seems like it's right there.

Do you want me to just repeat what I said?

When the sun is at sunset, it will appear below the cloud line. However, if you talk to others around the world at the time they will inform you that the sun is not below the clouds, that it merely appears so due to your location.

Right. The jet is right there and that orb is nearby as in not 93,000,000 miles away as my eyes observe.

The orb - Sun, is not nearby.

It appears below the cloud line because it is at sunset.

It's still very far away.

ok. Looks close.

Already did.

My answer remains the same.

Just because it looks close doesn't mean it is lol.

Yea that shit is not 93 million miles away LMAO

This might help you understand.
If is doesn't nothing will.

Is there something wrong? It LOOKS LIKE it's there but it's really 93,000,000 miles away. See? Anyone can make statements. The difference is mine is common knowledge to 2nd graders

lol

I know, so simple.

you can explain 9/11 by stepping on a soda can too

Not really.

You got down voted for claiming a steel rectangular prism would behave differently than a hollow aluminium cylinder if exposed to similar conditions. Lets take a moment to reflect on this.

Flat earthers such as myself are not impressed, we have been telling you this the whole time, the sun is close (within the dome). There are tons of videos of clouds behind sun and moon. Earth is flat measured flatness myself up to 46 miles straight over water (water always remains level). If the earth were a sphere based on the size of the earth (25,000 miles inc circumference) then there would be 1400 feet of drop which would be 1400 feet from the horizon line, yet I saw the surface of the water hitting the bow of the ship through my telescope.

What telescope do you have?

Celestron 127 EQ. I bought the EQ to pan back and forth at the beach locked in at 0 degrees.

Seriously. We're in a hologram. OMFG PEOPLE!

Nobody tries to impress flat earthers. They're so far down the intellectual totem pole, that, when they're looking up at the rest of us, we seem to be outside the firmament.

At least you figured out which end of the telescope to peer through. That's something.

Ahh the old flat earth is stupid routine, wow man really, all you got is ad hominem which is just a logical fallacy. Not a flat earther because I cannot comprehend the globe in fact I know too much about the globe model, moreso than many many many ball earthers. We flat earthers are just the first to test what we have been told. ONLY when you test the globe and put it to the test will you realize that you have been fooled, we all have. I know it may be a hard blow to the ego and the intellect but I do not care about anything but truth.

When you're talking about who's been fooled, you can speak only for yourself. Flat earth is falsifiable idiocy.

Dunning-Kreuger effect at play here.

It is, only not in the way that you think I it is.

I do not think, I either know or I am ignorant but in this case I KNOW.

You don't know. You believe. And you believe it so strongly, that you'll ignore literal and figurative mountains of evidence that prove otherwise. All because you've seen a couple "interesting" observations. I suspect that you also have some religulous reason for this belief, but that's just a reasonable guess.

I can't be too hard on you, I suppose. There's someone in my own house that has this same mentality. My daughter just KNOWS that Santa brings her presents every year. She's seen too much evidence that he's real, and nobody at school can convince her otherwise.

She's 8. Are you 8 too?

You packed a strawman and an ad hominem argument together here which are two logical fallacies. You are going to have to wake up just a tad earlier to get this 🐛 worm little 🐦 bird.

Have you heard of the fallacy fallacy?

Nope. Earth is flat, stationary, and motionless. Just like your senses tell you.

And your senses are never wrong right?

You don't even know what the Belt of Venus is yet claim to "know too much about the globe model". Sounds like weaponized ignorance.

There are tons of videos of clouds behind sun and moon.

No there's not, there isn't a single one. The fact that you are spreading this outright lie is highly questionable.

Why can I not see Polaris from Australia?

You're simply not trying hard enough.

He

Just seems like the sun is so bright it shines through the clouds. Clouds are gas and not solid the brightness of the sun makes them not visible. I'd love to see simulation proof but don't hunk this is it.

Try this one on because I cannot explain it:

(Vid 1:oo)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VJOl67RhpU

When it's sunset, the sun appears to be very close to the horizon. This allows it to illuminate the underside of the clouds. It only lasts a few minutes before it sinks below the horizon.

the earth is a sphere.

Explained in a shitty paint illustration

Thank you for this. That helps but damned if that video doesn't give the sensation that it is just right over there!

That's because the refelection you're seeing is "just right over there!"

Think of a mirror. We know how they work so it doesn't surprise us that a simple pane of glass can apparently contain a whole room... we know it's only a reflection of the room in front of the mirror so we take it in stride.

It's a similar situation here - what you're seeing is the cloud lit up like its the sun and because that cloud is right there, your brain is telling you the sun must be right there.

There is no room behind the mirror, nor is there a sun in those clouds.

That is a great way to explain this, thank you.

Physicists actually find the simulation theory very probable. Unlike flat earth.

Not in the way OP implies.

Ahhhh I see

artificial sun makes no sense to me, we've only recently made a patent, what about the rest of history?

even if earth was flat and in a dome, i don't think flat earthers say the sun is fake

If it's all a simulation why would a camera within the simulation bound by the same rules of everything else be able to capture evidence of the very simulation it's part of

I knew that the "proof" would be some shitty video footage before I even opened this thread.

i knew the top comment would be some shitty comment that has nothing to do with the video

TIL that an exact example which provides an explanation for an effect that has people asking questions is a "shitty example" according to some people.

Apparently in this case the head of the statue magically moved behind the moon over the course of a few seconds:

http://imgur.com/LWC5r3d

http://imgur.com/XNSUx00

This is mindbogglingly simple, the fact that you don't understand it is highly questionable.

Celestron 127 EQ. I bought the EQ to pan back and forth at the beach locked in at 0 degrees.

It's one of his standard tactics... when the evidence he asks for is provided, he immediately resorts to repeating a straight denial over and over again, hoping you'll give up.

"Show me evidence!"

[evidence provided]

"Nope, not seeing it... show me evidence"

[rinse and repeat]

I don't think he gets how stupid it makes him look.

You don't know. You believe. And you believe it so strongly, that you'll ignore literal and figurative mountains of evidence that prove otherwise. All because you've seen a couple "interesting" observations. I suspect that you also have some religulous reason for this belief, but that's just a reasonable guess.

I can't be too hard on you, I suppose. There's someone in my own house that has this same mentality. My daughter just KNOWS that Santa brings her presents every year. She's seen too much evidence that he's real, and nobody at school can convince her otherwise.

She's 8. Are you 8 too?

Have you heard of the fallacy fallacy?