Nikon Cameras 'Prove' the Earth Is Flat

When it comes to providing evidence for any claim, pictures and videos tend to go a long way. As photographers, many of us have access to some pretty high-end equipment; however, it seems only Nikon cameras can disprove fundament aspects of our reality. 

If you've ever explored the darker corners of the internet and specifically YouTube, you'll find some pretty interesting claims and "theories." One of these is a very popular one about how the Earth is flat. This is crazy, right? I mean, how could anyone believe that the Earth is flat? Well, Nikon has the gear to help us prove this obvious fact with their P900 and P1000 cameras. These cameras offer the ability to zoom right to the edge of the planet. Only with Nikon cameras can you zoom right to the horizon and prove how we have all been deceived. What has Canon ever done aside from giving us cropped 4K video? And don't even get me started on Sony with their overheating, rain-catching toys. Nikon is clearly where it's at, and at 9:23 in the video above, you'll see why these cameras could be called the "flat Earth cameras." 

On a more serious note, the Nikon P900 and P1000 cameras are pretty incredible considering how much of a zoom they offer. A quick search on YouTube will show some of the cool things you can do with these cameras. Finally, I find it interesting how this idea of the Earth being flat is actually quite a recent one. There is a misconception that people in the Middle Ages used to believe the Earth was flat. Suffice it to say, there is no evidence to suggest that any civilization in the history of humanity ever believed the Earth was flat. 

Log in or register to post comments


Previous comments
user-156929's picture

So, if I can force myself to loudly fart at a wedding, there is no should or shouldn't? ;-) I think we probably just disagree on the terms and limitations of should and shouldn't. Without "should" and "shouldn't", "can" leads to the kind of hatred and tribalism that leads to holy ideas and all too common today. I guess Copernicus would approve!?
Oh yeah, lumping "discussed" and "critiqued" with "ridiculed" does them a disservice. If "ridiculed" can't stand on its own, and sometimes it can, it should be discarded.

Usman Dawood's picture

The should and shouldn't point I made was specifically for this issue. Also, if you're at a wedding, and around people, you actually shouldn't. A rule that applies in one context doesn't mean that it applies to all, that's very odd to suggest. Consider how something like dress code works.

"Without "should" and "shouldn't", "can" leads to the kind of hatred and tribalism that leads to holy ideas and all too common today."

Can you elaborate, please? If anything the exact opposite is true. When we make certain topics and beliefs not open for discussion or make them immune to being ridiculed that's how ideas become holy. Also, tribalism in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, we've evolved to be social beings and tribes are a significant part of the social fabric. It's also something that has helped us survive in many situations and gives many (most/all) of us a sense of identity.

user-156929's picture

Sorry. I assumed your points regarding should and shouldn't were universal. I guess I'm unfamiliar with those subject where they don't apply. Perhaps you could point me to a list. ;-) That wasn't intended to mock but a gentle teasing. :-)

Again, you're attempting to conflate discussion and ridicule and seem to be approaching the subject from a point of advantage. The Catholic church had the advantage and ridiculed Copernicus et. al. rather than discussing the subject or even critiquing their assertions. I'm imagining, had they tried the latter, the outcome may have been different. What do you think the outcome would have been, had Copernicus mocked them? An approach that serves in one set of circumstances may not work out so well in another.

Since we're using terms subjectively :-) the tribalism I'm referring to is demonstrated very well by the current political discord in the U.S. and Europe. In a healthy atmosphere, the "tribes" would discuss and critique their disparate views, try to find agreement where possible and passionately debate those areas where they will never agree. Having done so, some compromise will be achieved where neither side gets everything they want but they can shake hands and say, "Wait until next time! :-p" Instead, we see violence, intentional deception and outright lies. I can't imagine you think that's a good thing.

Sometimes I imagine being part of a tribe and enjoying the benefits you listed.

Usman Dawood's picture

"What do you think the outcome would have been, had Copernicus mocked them?

Well, yes because they believed their thoughts were holy. This is why I'm saying no, there are no holy ideas otherwise we would have that type of backward rule.

Also, science doesn't mind if it's ridiculed. It really doesn't matter if Science is ridiculed because it's true, (or the closest thing to truth we have).

Take flat earthers for example, they ridicule the idea of planet earth being a globe but does it matter... no cause their belief or disbelief doesn't change facts. Therefore, they are free to ridicule the globe and I am free to ridicule the flat earth idea.

We are free to ridicule any and all ideas but we don't extend that to people.

"I can't imagine you think that's a good thing."

It's not a good thing but unfortunately, that's how many (if not all) of us are. That doesn't mean tribalism is bad it's simply that we as a species are still growing and developing. Society has not yet been perfected but we're working on it.

user-156929's picture

I think we're looking at the Copernicus thing from differing viewpoints. I'm attempting to tie together, ridicule and "holy" ideas, arguing that the Church ridiculed scientists due to their "holy" ideas. Copernicus, on the other hand, didn't attack or ridicule the church but, published his ideas, based on research, in a thoughtful, deliberate manner and allowed the truth to speak for itself.

"Science doesn't mind if it's ridiculed." Science isn't cognizant. We're talking about people here. And the interviewer in the video, admittedly mildly, mocked the flat-earthers and some of the commenters to your article have done so explicitly. Even so, a lot of people identify themselves with certain of their ideas. Unfortunate, especially in this case, but common.

Society will never be perfected but, of course, we should work at it.

I think we've taken up too much time on this so I'll leave it here. If you wish to reply, I will read and consider your comments but won't comment further. Thanks for being thoughtful in your discourse and not mocking me! :-)

Usman Dawood's picture

It's a shame you won't continue this conversation, I find you generally have some very useful and interesting points to make. Of course, we all have other things to do so I understand.

"Science isn't cognizant" This is true although the point I was making was to describe it doesn't matter if facts or scientific research is critiqued. If anything the normal practice is to generally dismiss and sometimes ridicule any new hypothesis. The community only considers the evidence which is a really good thing in my opinion. Essentially no scientific idea is holy, all are open to being critiqued and ridiculed but you better have evidence to back up your claims.

Copernicus didn't ridicule the church because if he did more than likely he would have been executed. It wasn't a matter of should or shouldn't it was a matter of can't which modern society is against. Your context and example doesn't really work because the church was essentially the government.

Hate to break it to you Usman, but usually when you "make fun" of an idea or belief it usually ends with an explosion, shooting or with a court ruling that is not freedom of expression{%22itemid%22:[%22001-187188%22]}

Usman Dawood's picture

That's exactly why we need to work hard to enjoy the freedoms we want. It's also why I'm quite specific when it comes to freedom of expression and why I don't offer any leeway with "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts"

Alex Cooke's picture

You can't make a rational argument with an irrational person. The fact that these people begin from the premise of rejecting science demonstrates their irrationality.

user-156929's picture

That's a reasonable statement but pretty arrogant. I don't know these people and neither do you. To my way of thinking, they seem to be rejecting the idea of blindly accepting the word of scientists and NOT science. This is demonstrated by their attempts to use scientific principles (to the best of their ability) to refute a round earth. The same holds for those who question Anthropogenic Climate Change. Now, if they postulated that the flat earth rested on the backs of elephants or a turtle, that would be irrational but still acceptable as a religious belief.
That same attitude is the reason for a lot of the political discord in the U.S. and other countries. Treating people as if they're somehow unworthy of serious debate is one of the most demeaning things I can imagine. When confronted by a homeless person, do you summarily dismiss them as being irrational due to whatever life choices led to their situation? I seriously doubt it. In a lot of cases, the homeless came to be thus for irrational choices. In others, well... life happens. I can't know this but I imagine you giving them the benefit of the doubt, you deny the people in the video. They were certainly passionate in their beliefs but treated the interviewer with respect.

Please know that I am NOT trying to attack you. I believe you to be intelligent, caring and, yes, rational. What I am against is, the very human reaction so many have to those who they disagree with and, yes, I do that a lot myself! I've often heard, the things you find unacceptable in others are often those traits you see in yourself, but I'm trying to do better. :-)

Sam Fargo and Usman Dawood win the internet today. Love the discussion. It's like a Sam Harris podcast lol

user-156929's picture

Sam Harris? I've heard of podcasts but have no idea what they are or how to view/listen to them.

He is a neuroscientist/philosopher with a podcast. He's very intelligent and just has discussions with guests about all kinds of topics. Sometimes they get into arguing about things like could vs should. That's what reminded me of him. Way off topic I know, but I think you would enjoy some of the discussions/debates. They even do live events all over that people pay to attend. Sam is agnostic, but sometimes debates religious people. Only mentioning that because you said you were Christian. You seem very reasonable to me though, as does Sam Harris. Anyway, just type Sam Harris into youtube and be prepared for some lengthy but interesting discussions. As for the P900, I own one and no, it does not prove the earth is flat 😜

user-156929's picture

Ohhh! I guess I've seen a few podcasts but didn't know that's what they were. The "pod" part confused me. I get confused a lot. :-(

Tim Ericsson's picture

“I do it to amuse myself. Ridiculing the intelligentsia is fun.”
- Sam Fargo (a couple of weeks ago).

user-156929's picture

"I do that a lot myself! I've often heard, the things you find unacceptable in others are often those traits you see in yourself, but I'm trying to do better."
- Sam Fargo (a couple of hours ago).

user-156929's picture

Thanks. I will.

Don't ridicule creationists, many of their so called crazy ideas were proven to be fact as science learned more about our earth. What is more crazy is referring to evolution as fact, it is still an unproven theory. Even Darwin commented that there are many flaws in his theory. Richard Dawkins believes that we came from aliens (he's on youtube). Who is more crazy? Many Biblical geological claims of missing civilizations were discarded as Biblical fantasy, then archeologists (in the past 50 years) discovered coins and writings from those so called fantasies. Evolution claims the dinosaurs were extinct before man evolved, yet in Peru and in Europe there are drawings and paintings and writing of mans' interactions with and domesticating dinosaurs.
The "stories" of fire breathing dragons was ridiculed for decades, but scientists have learned and shown that they were alive and did exist in medieval times. There is still much that needs to be learned, but you can only learn if you have an open mind and are willing to consider that you were wrong about something. As soon as you close your mind, you stop learning.

Usman Dawood's picture

There's a huge difference between what we commonly call a theory vs a Scientific Theory. A scientific theory is a fact because it's based on substantial evidence. Gravity, for example, is a scientific theory but we it is a theory in the same way that we do Evolution is; they are both facts.

"Don't ridicule creationists, many of their so called crazy ideas were proven to be fact as science learned more about our earth.

Can you provide evidence for that?

The links you provided are mostly to images that are proven fakes and hoaxes.

"The "stories" of fire breathing dragons was ridiculed for decades, but scientists have learned and shown that they were alive and did exist in medieval times."

Evidence required.

A theory is a theory, not fact. Gravity is not a theory, it is a scientifically proven fact with proven repeatable values. Evolution has many gaping holes in its theory. Dawkins even admits it and uses this as his explanation for our existence:
'It could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose that it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology. You might find a signature of some sort of designer… And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe." -Dawkins'

The pottery and paintings in Peru were never proven to be fakes; stop spreading misinformation.
You can Google search and Bing search if you have an open mind. If you prefer to be closed minded, just sit there and demand other people do all the work for you so you can simply say "Not true." Which is basically all you wrote in your reply.

Usman Dawood's picture

Look up the theory of gravity, it's a scientific theory. Gravity is a fact in the same way that evolution is. A scientific theory IS a fact. Arguing this is pointless and if this is your basis of discussion then I can't continue this conversation. You don't seem to understand the fundamental definitions of this discussion.

A hypothesis is the same as what we commonly call a theory. You're mixing these terms up.

Darwin wasn't the be-all and end-all of evolution. Do you think all research and understandings stopped after Darwin? Do you honestly believe he determined and learned everything about this fact?

Many of the Peruvian paintings were proven to be fake look it up it doesn't even require significant digging. A farmer was found to be one of the individuals who committed these hoaxes.

I'm closed minded to anything but evidence which is reasonable because otherwise, you fall for any claim that anyone makes.

The stone carvings are proven to be authentic. The hundreds of pottery pieces were proven to be authentic. Using the excuse that some of the painting were fakes (which I acknowledge) doesn't automatically discount the others. There are hundreds of authentic artifacts. One or two conmen don't change that. Try not using such a lame argument. If we applied the same standard to most of science, (one or two shysters disqualifies an entire set of facts and truths) where would science be today? In the dark ages still.

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something

Suppositions are not proven facts

Gravitational Theory (of which there are 4 currently) is not the same as Gravity "the fact". You were confusing one with the other. There are 4 theories, not including Gravitational Instability theory. Those are still theories because in some part or manner they contradict the Big Bang THEORY.... ;)

Usman Dawood's picture

Ok I give up you need to learn more about the fundamental definitions we use when it comes to scientific language.

The word we use commonly as theory is NOT the same as a scientific theory anyone who’s done even the slightest amount of research can figure this out.

Gravity is a scientific theory as in fact it’s the same thing. Gravity has laws that help you calculate how certain things will work but ultimately and overall it is a scientific theory. This is because as with most things we may not know absolutely everythIng there is about the subject.

I don’t think you offer anything valuable to this discussion so I won’t be replying to you again.

This beetle is only a couple evolutionary steps away from being a full grown dragon according to Darwin

Usman Dawood's picture

So does that mean you accept evolution is true then? I don't know what point you're trying to make here. For you to provide this point you have to accept that evolution is a fact otherwise you don't even believe your own words.

No, I said "according to Darwin"
The beetle is a living example of having the ability to excrete a noxious chemical. A person of an older era, unfamiliar with chemistry, would describe it as smoke, the burning sensation would be described as burning like fire; hence the term would have been fire breathing.
You have to consider the limited knowledge and vocabulary of the persons living in that era.
You asked for evidence of "fire breathing". Now instead of acknowledging evidence, you try switching the discussion? That is evidence of having a closed mind unwilling to accept any other viewpoint that your own.

There is nothing not worth making a joke about.

user-156929's picture

Joking is different from ridiculing.

More comments