[AATW]

Adding that not only does it look fake to me

So what's your reference frame here? You say it "looks fake". Based on what?
What experience of seeing space ships docks with other space ships do you have which could mean you can accurately assess this?
The only other experience you can possibly have are Hollywood films which actually are fake.
So other than a vague assertion that it "looks fake", which is entirely subjective and not based on much I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

[HonestTruth]

Adding that not only does it look fake to me

So what's your reference frame here? You say it "looks fake". Based on what?
What experience of seeing space ships docks with other space ships do you have which could mean you can accurately assess this?
The only other experience you can possibly have are Hollywood films which actually are fake.
So other than a vague assertion that it "looks fake", which is entirely subjective and not based on much I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

You're correct - we have 'actual' fakes (Hollywood movies) - which look like the video posted by the OP. Hollywood movies actually look better. So there's one reference frame.

What's yours, based on your experience of seeing space ships dock with other spaceships?

[Airplane]

Adding that not only does it look fake to me

So what's your reference frame here? You say it "looks fake". Based on what?
What experience of seeing space ships docks with other space ships do you have which could mean you can accurately assess this?
The only other experience you can possibly have are Hollywood films which actually are fake.
So other than a vague assertion that it "looks fake", which is entirely subjective and not based on much I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

You're correct - we have 'actual' fakes (Hollywood movies) - which look like the video posted by the OP. Hollywood movies actually look better. So there's one reference frame.

What's yours, based on your experience of seeing space ships dock with other spaceships?

The lighting and appearance of the video aside, can we talk about the logistics of faking something like this?

I think we can all agree that SpaceX does actually launch rockets. Anyone can go to Florida and observe the launches. These aren't small rockets either, the rocket which launched this capsule is roughly the height of a 21 story building.

My question is why would a private company (which needs to make money to continue existing) spend billions of dollars repeatedly launching a giant rocket into space solely to pretend dock with the ISS?

Another thing to remember is that this isn't a one off event. SpaceX routinely launches crew dragon to the ISS.

[AATW]

You're correct - we have 'actual' fakes (Hollywood movies) - which look like the video posted by the OP. Hollywood movies actually look better. So there's one reference frame.

Better by what metric?
I mean, lots of things enhanced by CGI look "better" (shinier, slicker, more impressive) than real life, that doesn't mean real life doesn't exist.

What's yours, based on your experience of seeing space ships dock with other spaceships?

I don't have one, apart from videos like the above.
But I'm not the one making vague claims that this is fake.

We all have a model of reality in our heads. When I saw Jurassic Park I didn't think "Holy shit! Dinosaurs are still alive". Because I know they aren't. But when I see footage like this...I know the ISS exists - you can literally see it from the ground. I know rockets are a thing - I saw a Shuttle launch back in the day. So on what basis would I think this would be faked? For what purpose would it be?

EDIT: You might want to have a go at this quiz
https://area.autodesk.com/fakeorfoto/
I'd be interested to know your score.

[HonestTruth]

The basis of why this would be faked isn't the topic of this discussion. Perhaps make a topic around the purpose of faking 'space' missions? That might yield some of the answers you're looking for.

I got 92%.

[stack]

The basis of why this would be faked isn't the topic of this discussion. Perhaps make a topic around the purpose of faking 'space' missions? That might yield some of the answers you're looking for.

I got 92%.

Actually, the topic of the discussion is in the OP: The curvature of the earth clearly visible...flat surfaces of the ISS are also visible...no lens distortion...how explained by FET?

Is your explanation: The video is fake therefore the ISS and the curve seen are fake?

[Airplane]

The basis of why this would be faked isn't the topic of this discussion. Perhaps make a topic around the purpose of faking 'space' missions? That might yield some of the answers you're looking for.

I got 92%.

As OP I have widened the topic of discussion to include SpaceX and its motives for faking a video like this. I believe it is core to the topic at hand.

It is especially pertinent given that the initial consensus of this thread is that the video is fake. Barring an investigation into how a video like this could be explained with flat earth theory I would rather this thread focus on why such a video would be fabricated. I feel like that would be more engaging than bickering over who can best recognize cgi. 

[HonestTruth]

The basis of why this would be faked isn't the topic of this discussion. Perhaps make a topic around the purpose of faking 'space' missions? That might yield some of the answers you're looking for.

I got 92%.

Actually, the topic of the discussion is in the OP: The curvature of the earth clearly visible...flat surfaces of the ISS are also visible...no lens distortion...how explained by FET?

Is your explanation: The video is fake therefore the ISS and the curve seen are fake?

My explanation would be closer to 'if the video is fake, then discussing any specific detail within it is irrelevant.' Like discussing how 'realistic' Star Wars is.

The discussion parameters have been changed. The OP would rather discuss the motives behind faking a space video, rather than its legitimacy. I imagine the answer is fairly simple... 'to make people think that the space video - and everything contained within it - is real.' To what end? Speculation: to further the narrative that we are conducting space missions.

But unfortunately, we're no longer discussing a specific video, but instead we're dealing with hypothetical motives of faking media. I'd have preferred the OP to create a new thread for people to speculate the motives of SpaceX in, and I'd have decided if I wanted to participate.

[stack]

The basis of why this would be faked isn't the topic of this discussion. Perhaps make a topic around the purpose of faking 'space' missions? That might yield some of the answers you're looking for.

I got 92%.

Actually, the topic of the discussion is in the OP: The curvature of the earth clearly visible...flat surfaces of the ISS are also visible...no lens distortion...how explained by FET?

Is your explanation: The video is fake therefore the ISS and the curve seen are fake?

My explanation would be closer to 'if the video is fake, then discussing any specific detail within it is irrelevant.' Like discussing how 'realistic' Star Wars is.

The discussion parameters have been changed. The OP would rather discuss the motives behind faking a space video, rather than its legitimacy. I imagine the answer is fairly simple... 'to make people think that the space video - and everything contained within it - is real.' To what end? Speculation: to further the narrative that we are conducting space missions.

But unfortunately, we're no longer discussing a specific video, but instead we're dealing with hypothetical motives of faking media. I'd have preferred the OP to create a new thread for people to speculate the motives of SpaceX in, and I'd have decided if I wanted to participate.

Airplane "widened" the discussion to "include" the motive(s). So in addition to the curvature issue raised in the OP not instead of. You are not forced to discuss a motive. But sometimes if there is a crime, in this case, potential fakery, it helps to examine the why to potentially lend more credence to what is actually in question.

Again, I'm not sure what you want to discuss. I guess questions are, do you believe that space exploration is not real and that notion is perpetuated based upon your belief that the video is fake? And specifically, aside from the ISS looking vaguely like a model to you in the video, do you have anything directly you'd like to point to? Like why it looks like a model? Or are there other indicators that make it seem so to you, visible wires, lighting, other evidence, etc.,? Are other videos less or more convincing? Just saying, "It looks fake," doesn't offer a lot up to discuss.

[Airplane]

The basis of why this would be faked isn't the topic of this discussion. Perhaps make a topic around the purpose of faking 'space' missions? That might yield some of the answers you're looking for.

I got 92%.

Actually, the topic of the discussion is in the OP: The curvature of the earth clearly visible...flat surfaces of the ISS are also visible...no lens distortion...how explained by FET?

Is your explanation: The video is fake therefore the ISS and the curve seen are fake?

My explanation would be closer to 'if the video is fake, then discussing any specific detail within it is irrelevant.' Like discussing how 'realistic' Star Wars is.

The discussion parameters have been changed. The OP would rather discuss the motives behind faking a space video, rather than its legitimacy. I imagine the answer is fairly simple... 'to make people think that the space video - and everything contained within it - is real.' To what end? Speculation: to further the narrative that we are conducting space missions.

But unfortunately, we're no longer discussing a specific video, but instead we're dealing with hypothetical motives of faking media. I'd have preferred the OP to create a new thread for people to speculate the motives of SpaceX in, and I'd have decided if I wanted to participate.

Airplane "widened" the discussion to "include" the motive(s). So in addition to the curvature issue raised in the OP not instead of. You are not forced to discuss a motive. But sometimes if there is a crime, in this case, potential fakery, it helps to examine the why to potentially lend more credence to what is actually in question.

Again, I'm not sure what you want to discuss. I guess questions are, do you believe that space exploration is not real and that notion is perpetuated based upon your belief that the video is fake? And specifically, aside from the ISS looking vaguely like a model to you in the video, do you have anything directly you'd like to point to? Like why it looks like a model? Or are there other indicators that make it seem so to you, visible wires, lighting, other evidence, etc.,? Are other videos less or more convincing? Just saying, "It looks fake," doesn't offer a lot up to discuss.

This is correct. I would prefer the discussion operate under the assumption that the video is real, but barring that, the specifics of how someone would go about faking a video is less interesting to me than why SpaceX would choose to fake this particular mission.

[HonestTruth]

The initial question was related to the curvature seen in the initial video, and how that could be explained by a proponent FE. My contention was that the OP presumed that the validity of the video was not in question. But as I don't find the video in question to be valid, the apparent shape of the earth shown in a fake video is largely irrelevant.

This topic has since between widened to now say 'what are the motivations for faking a video like this' - which is an entirely different topic.

As you've said, there's very little to discuss. I don't think what is being shown in this particular video is real, and I'm not interested in endlessly speculating as to why SpaceX would produce it.

I think we're done here.

[Airplane]

The initial question was related to the curvature seen in the initial video, and how that could be explained by a proponent FE. My contention was that the OP presumed that the validity of the video was not in question. But as I don't find the video in question to be valid, the apparent shape of the earth shown in a fake video is largely irrelevant.

This topic has since between widened to now say 'what are the motivations for faking a video like this' - which is an entirely different topic.

As you've said, there's very little to discuss. I don't think what is being shown in this particular video is real, and I'm not interested in endlessly speculating as to why SpaceX would produce it.

I think we're done here.

You are under no obligation to participate. My questions still stand as posed.

[billsmithsmithbill22]

This looks computer generated. Just look how fake the capsule looks, don't you see it's just an animation?

[JHelzer]

I have been away for so long.  It's nice to see that nothing has changed.  Hyperfocus on technical tangents instead of answering real questions is still in fashion.

The video does not look like an animation or a model.  It looks real.  This is a SpaceX animation and it looks fake because of the perfect, smooth camera framing, and false lighting effects.  It lacks texture detail, etc.  The video posted by the OP is sped up, but it is real footage.