We can't, not for as long as you present these as philosophically equivalent. You can't prove a bombastic claim you've made. I can't prove something that's unprovable, and which you're unfairly suggesting I should prove.
It has everything to do with burden of proof. You made a claim you can't prove, and your best defence is that I can't prove you wrong.
I am suggesting that all claims are unproveable, in the strictest sense.
There's a reason why in law you only have to prove something beyond
reasonable doubt.
I'm trying to prove you murdered Tom.
I have a 10 witnesses who say they clearly saw you do it - maybe they are all mistaken/lying.
Your fingerprints are all over the murder weapon - maybe you handled the weapon previously but it wasn't you who murdered Tom.
You have his blood all over your clothes - maybe you arrived on the scene later and it got there then.
You confessed - maybe you were coerced or are lying for some reason.
And so on.
I as the prosecution can present whatever evidence I like, your defence can always cast some doubt on it. It's up to the jury to decide whether the doubt is reasonable and so a conviction would be unsafe.
I'm
not suggesting you should prove anything. I'm explicitly saying you can't. And I can't.
I don't have a claim at all, the space tourists do. The issue here is whether we believe their claim.
I have explained why I do. I believe space travel is a thing. I believe the ISS is a thing. Their journeys are well documented and they certainly have the means to pay the prices being claimed.
I've also explained why I wouldn't believe them if they made other more outlandish claims like that they'd flown to space and confirmed that the Earth is a globe by flapping their arms. Because although I know rockets are a thing, I also know people can't fly by flapping their arms. We suspend disbelief when we watch magic shows but we know David Copperfield can't really fly - it's the fact he's flying that makes it an entertaining trick, if people could fly then it wouldn't be that impressive.
We all have a model of reality in our heads and we use that as a basis for what claims we think are credible. For claims we think outlandish we require a higher level of evidence. If I claimed that I went to see "1917" at the cinema last night then you'd probably have no reason to doubt me - you know that cinemas are a thing, you know that it's a film that is out right now. If I claimed that I went into 10 Downing Street last year then you might doubt me - you know it's where the Prime Minister of the UK lives, you can't even get in the road these days and the house is not open to the public.
[For the record, I didn't see 1917 last night but I did go to Number 10 last year, I have a friend who works there - people can lie about mundane stuff too]
I'm not suggesting you prove anything, I'm just asking if you've looked into these claims in any detail and have evidence that the photos/video of these people's trips has been faked. The reason you might want to do that is that every satellite launch and every trip to the ISS is an opportunity for you to examine your beliefs about a flat earth. And these people aren't NASA employees, I think they all went up on Russian rockets.
If "credentials" are your way of assessing someone's credibility, be prepared to get scammed multiple times in your life.
Not "credentials", but credentials. I saw a funny post on FB about misused quotation marks:
The "dentist" will see you now. Doesn't really inspire confidence!
But yes, credentials absolutely form part of my perception of someone's credibility. The lady at church who thinks that chopped onions trap cold germs is not, amazingly, a medical doctor. If she was then I might take her claim a bit more seriously.
I'm not saying it's the only criterion, but it surely has to be one of them.
It must be so blissful to be able to dismiss people you don't like with a bunch of insults, and to just carry on with your life without thinking about it.
People I don't like? I don't know any of these people from Adam, I have no opinion about whether I "like" them or not.
But the videos I have seen of people "debunking" the ISS - Tom has posted some on here - are not by people who seem to be experts in the field of image or video analysis. Maybe there are better ones out there but the ones I've seen have been vague assertions like "Aha! Look! He's grabbing at a wire" when the reality is you can't really clearly see that. I don't know what you mean by "bunch of insults". I'm just saying they don't seem - to me - to have the relevant skills to be credible.
It seems to me that when it comes to space travel and technologies which use satellites the FE attitude is to dismiss it as fake or claim it works in some other way without any real basis and to just carry on with their lives without thinking about it.