[ElTrancy]

I'm guessing that all of you think Elon Musk is fake, and he's just doing the SpaceX hoax for money? Is his company fake, but for what reason? Money? I think owning Tesla, the Boring Company, selling Pay-Pal, and owning SpaceX, he'd have enough money.

[Parallax]

Fake? No, he's almost certainly real. The tesla in space, however, is almost certainly a hoax.

For some people its not about money. If they are in the elite group that control the world its not just money they care about. Its power.

[ElTrancy]

Fake? No, he's almost certainly real. The tesla in space, however, is almost certainly a hoax.

For some people its not about money. If they are in the elite group that control the world its not just money they care about. Its power.

Can you prove the tesla was faked? Also, what evidence do you have for THAT?

[Tumeni]

The tesla in space, however, is almost certainly a hoax.

How do you arrive at that conclusion? And why "almost"?  You aren't sure? So you admit some small level of possibility that it's real?

[Parallax]

Don't be so dense, it's a figure of speech.

That Tesla in space is a fake, it's nothing more than CGI. You have to be seriously brainwashed to believe there's a Tesla in orbit.

[xenotolerance]

it's nothing more than CGI.

this is a claim of evidence.

prove it

[ElTrancy]

That Tesla in space is a fake, it's nothing more than CGI. You have to be seriously brainwashed to believe there's a Tesla in orbit.

Prove it, come on. We're not the ones brainwashed here. You are. You can't go spouting random claims without evidence.

[Westprog]

That Tesla in space is a fake, it's nothing more than CGI. You have to be seriously brainwashed to believe there's a Tesla in orbit.

Prove it, come on. We're not the ones brainwashed here. You are. You can't go spouting random claims without evidence.

The evidence is that it shows something which proves something which Parallax doesn't want to believe. Hence it must be faked. That's the FE movement in a nutshell.

There are ways to detect CGI but they have nothing to do with the "That's obviously CGI" claims. Don't expect detailed expertise from people who are actually able to analyse video footage. That's a very specialised skill and involves a lot of highly technical work.

The question is now - why would someone like Elon Musk, who is enormously wealthy, produce poor quality CGI? Surely his budget would allow for the good stuff.

The other aspect of Musk's project which I find interesting is that he's somehow convinced thousands of witnesses that they saw a rocket launched, that it went up into the sky. He's also convinced thousands of other people that they could actually see his Tesla-containing spacecraft passing overhead, exactly where he predicted it would be. (Covered in great detail on other threads).

I'm not sure what's supposed to be impossible about launching rockets upwards. It's possible in many jurisdictions to buy bottle rockets which one can launch oneself. It's also possible to purchase more sophisticated rockets which go higher and further. At what point do the FE advocates say "No, I believe this rocket, and this rocket (and this rocket) but that very big rocket that you can actually see from ten miles away - that one is a big ol' fake.

Rockets are actually quite unsophisticated technology. Far less sophisticated than CGI, for example. The computer technology required to do all the calculations for the Apollo Moon landings is massively less powerful than that required for CGI. As described in the film and book Hidden Figures, NASA didn't even use computers initially for its calculations. (The film The Dish is also very good at demonstrating how absurd it is to think one could fake a spacecraft).

Of course, the fact that people can actually watch FE advocates being interviewed via their satellite TV link, saying that space travel is faked, is irony taken to the extreme. Again, the existence of satellite TV has been covered here extensively, and remains another complete rebuttal to the FE theory, which doesn't change anyone's mind. Point a satellite dish up into the sky and get a TV picture from it? What does that demonstrate? The genuine FE believer will find it quite easy to ignore the implications. Space travel is a big fake, even when you can see satellites with your naked eye.

[AATW]

That Tesla in space is a fake, it's nothing more than CGI. You have to be seriously brainwashed to believe there's a Tesla in orbit.

Prove it, come on. We're not the ones brainwashed here. You are. You can't go spouting random claims without evidence.

The evidence is that it shows something which proves something which Parallax doesn't want to believe. Hence it must be faked. That's the FE movement in a nutshell

It's pretty much summed up on this Wiki page (which even Pete admitted is strange and he would look into, it's still there though)

https://wiki.tfes.org/Place_of_the_Conspiracy_in_FET

P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an  obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
   
P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth

So if you declare the flat earth an obvious truth - quite what the basis is for declaring it as such is unexplained - then you don't need to provide any evidence to show that anything which contradicts that.
This is not the reasoning of a "free thinker" or an "empiricist", it's just flat our denial.

If I believe all swans to be white and then I see a black swan then the rational response is to modify my belief about the colour of swans.
The denialist response as we see repeatedly on here is just to claim the black swan is fake with no basis so we don't have to alter our beliefs one bit.
It's not rational but it's the only way to cling to flat earth belief.

[Tumeni]

Don't be so dense, it's a figure of speech.

It's an adverb, with a specific meaning.

Dictionary
'almost' - adverb ; 
not quite; very nearly.

That Tesla in space is a fake, it's nothing more than CGI. You have to be seriously brainwashed to believe there's a Tesla in orbit.

At least two telescope operators imaged it once it left Earth orbit (see video above). And no, I don't believe it's 'in orbit' around Earth, because it left Earth orbit after less than two orbits (see same video above). People in California saw and imaged the exit burn.

Have you got ANYTHING to back up what you claim? Evidence of CGI processes? A CGI artist who will 'blow the whistle'? Anything?

[Westprog]

So if you declare the flat earth an obvious truth - quite what the basis is for declaring it as such is unexplained - then you don't need to provide any evidence to show that anything which contradicts that.
This is not the reasoning of a "free thinker" or an "empiricist", it's just flat out denial.

If I believe all swans to be white and then I see a black swan then the rational response is to modify my belief about the colour of swans.
The denialist response as we see repeatedly on here is just to claim the black swan is fake with no basis so we don't have to alter our beliefs one bit.
It's not rational but it's the only way to cling to flat earth belief.

There's something to be said about the black swan phenomenon. One can, reasonably, say that being white is an inherent property of being a swan, and that if a bird is black, it's something else, like a swan but differing in colour. It's then just a matter of definition.

The flat Earth theory involves a slightly different kind of convoluted thinking. It means that when a piece of evidence is uncovered which refutes the flat Earth possibility, a new physical law is invented. ("Perspective", curved light, etc).

[Jeppspace]

The flat Earth theory involves a slightly different kind of convoluted thinking. It means that when a piece of evidence is uncovered which refutes the flat Earth possibility, a new physical law is invented. ("Perspective", curved light, etc).

Haha, I admire your lighthearted critical humour. Cheers.

Yet, couldn't the same be said about the Big Bang theory, though? After all, it has "evolved" several times since its first conception.

Not that I defend baseless rejections of baseless rejections.

We have forums because, while we are certain of our beliefs, nothing can be proven... YET. There is however middle ground we need to investigate and, as you can appreciate, this is the best place for it. We only seek a mutual solution to what we call anomalies in the standard model.

We don't sign up to a far-out theory expecting to be applauded, ya know. 

Anyway, I found this video. Just for topic's sake.

[Jeppspace]

Apologies. I think this video debunks it. Still a dipshit thing to do though. Haha.

[i like spheres]

That Tesla in space is a fake, it's nothing more than CGI. You have to be seriously brainwashed to believe there's a Tesla in orbit.

Prove it, come on. We're not the ones brainwashed here. You are. You can't go spouting random claims without evidence.

Lol

[jimster]

Soon there will be a way to tell:

https://www.amsat.org/

They have contracted with SpaceX to launch a satellite they built. When it goes onto orbit, they will point their highly directional antennas at it and talk to people thousands of miles away by pointing at it. The hams built the satellite themselves, and their antennas, rotators, wrote their own software to track the satellite. Hams have been talking to each other through satellites since the 70s, also ISS, with highly directional antennas.

So, you space progam hoaxers, how does this work?

Conspiracy boundaries? SpaceX? Thousands of hams all over the world?

Google "amateur radio satellite" or youtube, see many many videos of random hams talking to satellites.

By the way, you also have to explain where those DirecTV dishes point on FE. Also gps has problems on FE. The proof points of FE are navigation and the space program. To fix navigation on FE requires an "atmolayer", a nver observed phenomenon that bends the light to make sextant work and conspiracy to explain the space program.