28 thoughts on “SpaceX is Fake | Elon Musk is a Fraud

  • September 10, 2016 at 11:17 am
    Permalink

    Hi. This is in response to Chris’ comments. I have been in the broadcast industry for about two decades. Fairly experienced with live broadcast and transmission technicalities. Perhaps this will assist in the analysis of this truly odd piece.

    Cheers,

    Joe

    1) The audio advance issue is (was) caused by video data using more bandwidth (amount of data being put through channel in need of processing) than audio, a problem primarily with semi-professional (“smaller”) systems. Audio may therefore be ahead in processing. Product goes to screen = audio advance. Thx to more efficient video codecs, faster computers processors etc etc, its not that apparent any longer, provided the processing unit has, apart from sufficient bus speed, sufficiently large memory capacity. I don’t think that an aeronautical entity would be troubled with a minute problem like that? If they can fly rockets, they should be able to manage a simple video feed or buy a memory chip.

    2) Data uses less bandwidth than audio. The data (manipulated into graphical display) is embedded in the video feed (or applied in the video mix prior to broadcast) and is, as pointed out, indeed ahead; which is consistent. However, once the engine is cut off in wide shot, with the data embedded, it cannot, during a true live transmission, be on again after cutting to the following narrow on-board shot. If there was some mysterious time advance in the wide shot, the data display would have to “jump” back. It does not. Thus: The video presented is NOT an honest live broadcast including the elements video, audio and data display. It was edited. Since it was edited, the presenters are not in a position to comment live (“as it happens”) and fooling their audience – which, oddly, appears to be X’s work force? Why?

    3) SpaceX’s big thing is to bring the rockets (partly) back for re-use. The alleged savings are explained in detail somewhere. Thus: the freeze just before the “money shot” is – or should be – an absolute PR disaster. Nothing funny about that.

    4) While it is correct that with digital television the broken link will show the last frame before signal loss (some technical detail to which the presenters. oddly make reference), a gradual signal loss (owed to weather issues, limited bandwidth or the like) would announce itself during the previous frames (black pixellation, sound clipping etc). No such thing. Thus it is likely that someone pulled the plug or that we see the result of a sudden, severe, technical issue. Either which way: the presenters would not be in a position to know about such beforehand. Yet, they giggle away prior to the event. How come?

    5) Not necessarily actors, agreed. At least not professionals. And they are not good, either. Whether this is by coincidence or design, who knows. It would appear to me that they know (perhaps not in exact detail) what is coming. Hence the smirks and smiles. They could, of course, also be employees. By the way: where are they, all the other employees we don’t see? Where’s the boss? Or any other bloke from management? Gone home early?

    6) The link is permits 100% video data throughput right until last frame. No sudden onset of tsunami or gale force winds… Plus: A failing link does not fade out sound. (Unless the fade was produced by LTV, for his voice over. Not sure about that one.) Clearly, no signal break up – but technical problem, very likely with (some) foreknowledge among the on-stage presenters, see above.

    7) Both cam angles presented seem to come from a position of the same side of the barge. First lower left, 2nd, slightly elevated angle, from r/h side if I judge this correctly. Since this is supposed to be a drone ship of sorts – I am assuming without crew – who re-arranged the lights in front of the lenses between freeze and the rocket that just landed ?

    Overall: It is a 100% genuine video production and a 0% live presentation of an event. Since the latter is what it is presented at to the audience, it is 100% dishonest.

    Why they would do that, without ulterior motive, is beyond me. LTV, keep up the good work!

    Peace.

    Reply
    • September 11, 2016 at 10:36 am
      Permalink

      Awesome. I love that I have experts like you in my audience to back me up once in a while. Cheers.

      Reply
    • September 12, 2016 at 12:32 pm
      Permalink

      1-2) I may have not been clear with the point I was trying to make here. Audio sync isn’t the issue, it’s the sync of the different video feeds coming from the ground and the spacecraft.
      The different video feeds are being sent to a central hub where the director of the broadcast can switch between them at will. However, each video feed has slightly different delays and will be slightly out of sync with each other. That’s how the engine can be off in one shot and still on in the other. Those two shots were out of sync. This is not unexpected for a live broadcast.
      3) It wouldn’t be PR disaster if the video cut out. There’s video of landing failures that have been released. If a glitching video feed is a PR disaster, the footage of the Falcon 9 tipping over (or straight up slamming into the drone ship) should ruin SpaceX.
      That doesn’t happen though. With each rocket failure, they can make the next generation of rockets that much more reliable and cheaper to fly.
      4) The presenters know it’s a possibility that the video will cut out. They probably didn’t know it was going to happen, but they knew that video drop-out was a very real possibility. The giggles still seem to be the result of three presenters who are not that comfortable being in front of a camera.
      5) Look the background with the three presenters. Those are all SpaceX employees. The rest probably have jobs to do. They are launching a rocket to space after all.
      6) It’s the high frequency vibrations of the rocket landing that cause the video to drop out. The waves and wind don’t affect the video transmission.
      7) The lights don’t change position. One of the lights is directly behind the Falcon 9.
      Still, I see no concrete evidence that this isn’t live. Only some conjecture.

      Reply
  • September 8, 2016 at 2:47 pm
    Permalink

    I just recently came across your channel and it’s very interesting to say the least. I’m going to preface this by saying that I do believe spaceflight (including the ISS and the Moon landings) is real, but I seeing other people’s opinions about the world and history.
    You say we need to look at these things with a critical mind, and I think I did that. These are my counter-arguments for many of the points you raise in the video.
    3:00 – Just because the vehicle is passing through Max Q (The area of highest dynamic pressure) doesn’t mean the vehicle will stop accelerating. If the stopped accelerating through Max Q, then they’re just wasting fuel, which is in turn costing them money. While the rate of acceleration may drop slightly during Max Q, it’s unreasonable to assume that it would stop accelerating altogether.
    3:29 – I’ve worked with live video before. It’s not uncommon for live feeds to be out of sync with each other by a second or so. In fact, it’s a pain in the butt. I once worked audio/visual for a production my college theater group was putting on and one of the things they wanted was live video of the performance on screens. It took three days to fix sync problems so the lips on the screens matched the actor’s vocals.
    I would assume that SpaceX is more concerned with getting the rocket to orbit than getting all the video feeds perfectly synced. The argument could be made that the slightly out-of-sync video feed would be evidence that this was real.
    5:09 – The vehicle is still experiencing drag. Not much drag, but enough to bleed about 123km/h from the rocket’s velocity. Look at the altimeter. It’s reading right around 70km in altitude at the time of stage separation, which is far below the Karman Line (100km). While below that line, the air is still thick enough to support (high speed) winged flight, so it would be thick enough to slow the rocket down slightly.
    6:48 – I would assume it’s a camera with a wide angle lens. It can be closer to the engine than it looks.
    7:49 – I would expect a rocket engine to wiggle slightly. It’s redirecting a small explosion.
    9:35 – Why do these people need to be actors? The fact that he doesn’t act natural would point to him not being an actor, but an engineer who isn’t as comfortable standing in front of a camera that’s broadcasting him live.
    10:39 – Storytime! My first car was a piece of junk that we bought off a friend for $100. It had quirks, but still worked fairly well. My family would always joke about how bad the car was and laugh when the engine sputtered. It’s not an uncommon reaction, especially when you’re nervous in front of a camera.
    11:24 – The feed only seems to become unreliable during the final seconds of the decent burn. The barge is already in position by the time the feed cuts out and the signal is restored seconds later. As long as the barge stays still during those seconds (which I’m sure it’s programmed to do) there’s no reason to think it won’t work. Also, the waves are relatively gentle motions compared to the rapid vibrations of a rocket engine. It’s kind of like comparing apples to oranges.
    12:37 – I would argue that the “smoke” are clouds that are farther away from the camera then they look. They don’t move and if it was small-scale smoke, the air currents in the studio would make it move around slightly.
    12:52 – SpaceX has landed rockets on the drone ships in broad daylight too. In fact, the first successful landing was filmed by multiple cameras and the landing was caught in full.
    13:13 – The engines are throttled down to a near hover at this point. The period of maximum thrust would be during the burn that drops the spacecraft back down to subsonic speed. This still wouldn’t affect the clouds that are far away from the camera.
    14:27 – Why is it disappointing? They knew that the video might drop out. Also, SpaceX’s primary goal is getting the payload to orbit. Even if the first stage crashed and burned, the primary mission was still going flawlessly.
    16:20 – I’ve looked up SpaceX’s video feeds from this launch and landing. They do cut back to the first angle, which also shows the Falcon 9 landed. The barge has multiple cameras on it.
    There seem to be logical explanations for basically every point you bring up. If I missed something, I would like to know, but as it stands, there is little to no evidence that this isn’t genuine…

    Reply
  • September 7, 2016 at 5:51 pm
    Permalink

    1. The video and telemetry are not perfectly synchronized due to them being on separate data feeds. I doubt SpaceX takes the time to use timecodes for the public feeds since they are just for entertainment purposes. If a problem were to happen, they would take the data feeds and get them exactly synced to troubleshoot in the lab. You can’t do it perfectly in real-time due to latency of various systems.

    2. Drone ships are autonomous since data links are unreliable. The only reliable link in the ocean is GPS which is just for positioning. The ship follows a programmed sequence rather than remote control like a military drone.

    3. Yes, they are bad presenters. They are amateurs at showbiz, but few engineers are good at presenting. They are happy because the mission was successful. The “experimental landing” is just that. It can fail and SpaceX still gets paid for delivering its payload, everyone get a back pat for that.

    4. Different camera angles? Yes, so? I hope they have lots of cameras on the drone for their landing data to be valid. You can’t learn anything in science or engineering without captured data from all angles.

    5. If all these things were so easily faked, other countries would have “faked” their own moon landing. Yet, they don’t, cuz it’s hard to fake stuff like this.

    6. Cats harbor toxoplasma gondii which can cause schizophrenia. Just saying.

    Reply
    • September 7, 2016 at 7:38 pm
      Permalink

      You’re funny. I might be schizophrenic but you’re insane if you think we went to the Moon. Every reasonable person who has actually looked into the Moon landing will come to the same conclusion. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

      Reply
  • August 24, 2016 at 1:05 pm
    Permalink

    I am just a cat but I enjoy your videos, human male. I got my littermate, Fu, to watch this one a second time with me. He agrees with you while I am still not sure. The young human female and the two human males are suspicious though. Mu wonders, do they have linkedin profiles?

    –Mu
    a cat

    Reply
  • August 24, 2016 at 9:45 am
    Permalink

    I completely agree. Thanks for researchers like you! I am new to this false reality.

    Reply
  • August 21, 2016 at 2:33 pm
    Permalink

    Watched the april landing. Man that thing touchs down fast. When it landed the odometer still read 17000 km

    Reply
  • August 21, 2016 at 1:56 pm
    Permalink

    “We wanna to bring you a more quality video but there is WI-FI in the middle of the Atlantic” and that’s when I want to smack this digital guys for making me laugh so hard I almost fell off my chair, lol.
    The girl, check how her face has a different “rosey” tone from the rest. It’s because she is the same as this:

    Reply
  • August 21, 2016 at 12:42 am
    Permalink

    I know nothing about space or telemetry (what’s that?) but when that rocket suddenly appears from the dark sitting on a barge in the ocean all shiny and bright, it is a Blue Peter job. Which translated means Children’s T.V. finest cardboard tube and silver foil extravaganza.

    Reply
  • August 20, 2016 at 11:34 pm
    Permalink

    I’m beginning to entertain the theory that they are intentionally deploying horribly bad B-team actors and footage for SpaceX as well as the various other false flag events as a test on what percentage of the population are awake and will openly question or reject their claims…sort of a quality control to see if they need to improve the fakery/CGI/hire better actors or if the status quo is adequate. The current quality of fakery obviously shows little regard for the intelligence of the average citizen.

    Reply
  • August 20, 2016 at 1:22 pm
    Permalink

    I received also a lot of dislikes for my Spacex video. To be more exactly almost 50 percent. But that is not so important. What really bothers me is the average view time. I put a lot of time and effort in my videos to explain things best as possible. So we all get stupid comments on our videos from people who even haven’t watched the entire clip. Some of them give you a dislike and a meaningless dogmatic comment just for the title of the video. Watching Spacex “Live” broadcasting is like watching American idol or Pop stars. They are always excited about everything. I have never seen footage from 1969 where people were so excited about the moon landing. It is such a phony and ridiculous show.

    Reply
  • August 20, 2016 at 10:48 am
    Permalink

    the engine is not just released there is a force pushing it out
    also ask yourself how a speedometer works and how they measure speed in the air, especially in those layers of the atmosphere
    the material around the exhaust pipes are subject to intense force + you have the optic distortion due to the temperature
    who said it’s smoke and not clouds? could also be part of the whole tech there, using gaseous mats for catalyze or slow down some of the processes, maybe eliminate random useless crap

    BUT as a whole all them videos seem fkd up, nonetheless your “proof” does not withstand simple criticizm

    Reply
    • August 21, 2016 at 8:43 am
      Permalink

      … so clouds wouldn’t be blown away ?

      Reply
  • August 20, 2016 at 1:23 am
    Permalink

    You would have thought they could have got Captain Kirk and Spock to do the front of camera shots instead of the giggling nerds.

    Good work Nathan….. keep at it.

    Reply
  • August 19, 2016 at 11:43 pm
    Permalink

    I liked your vid on Mandela effect, what do you think about this theory. The super computer that runs our duel universes is being overwhelmed by the amount of data and the two are bleeding together. Just a theory. But something is going on. Take care keep putting out content your on the right track. JT.

    Reply
  • August 19, 2016 at 7:25 pm
    Permalink

    Just looks like nerds on camera to me. The laughter is clearly nervous laughter, an actor wouldn’t look like such a fool LOL. They found the three most camera friendly people they have in that nerd factory full of socially awkward engineers. To be expected they have nervous laughter/ trying to be normal for camera (a little scary for some knowing 100,000 people are watching live.)

    Maybe they fudged the numbers on screen to make it look better for broadcast, but that certainly isnt enough proof for an entire fraudulent organization. I like you calling them out on it though.

    I’m all for a good conspiracy but this is way too much of reach, as always Im open-minded and sceptical. Huge factory, thousands of employees, customers paying millions, what’s the point of a fraud? Why not bring more attention to things that actually matter?

    Reply
    • August 20, 2016 at 2:08 am
      Permalink

      “Why not bring attention to things that matter?”

      Hmmm a nation being rinsed of tax dollars and hoodwinked into believing rockets can steer downwards from the edge of space onto a tiny, roiling, undulating unmanned barge in the middle of an ocean steered only by a few tiny fins. Really!

      I say keep up the good work Nathan some of us understand (perhaps incorrectly) the reach and the significance of this fraud. Cheers

      Reply
  • August 19, 2016 at 7:24 pm
    Permalink

    Not sure if you’ve run into Crrow777, but here is is take on the ‘fake’ Musk rocket launch success.

    Reply
  • August 19, 2016 at 6:35 pm
    Permalink

    Yes! Good job on calling Space X a complete fraud. Space X is a ridiculous attempt to sell Millennials on the fraud that there is actual scientific study in space. The first major private space agency is pulling the same BS that all the government space agencies have done. Russia, China, Japan, Europe, NASA space agencies are all complete fraud! I was questioning Space X on their YT video about why don’t they show a video of this miracle of bringing this falling rocket on a descent back to earth and how it stabilizes and slows to land nice and perfect like their videos show? The only responses I got were nonsense. Then, they actually release a video on the rocket itself descending back to the platform. And that video is completely cut and edited! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jEz03Z8azc This video at 0:15 you see the debris on the camera magically get cleared off! lol

    Reply
  • August 19, 2016 at 6:00 pm
    Permalink

    Loving your videos, your doing a great job !

    Please do one one about how rocket thrust may or may not even work in our upper atmosphere or space.

    Reply
  • August 19, 2016 at 5:55 pm
    Permalink

    Elon had me a for a minute because I’ve always wanted a Tesla – but then I noticed something that didn’t agree with me: the giant screen. I don’t see why a car needs a super computer, software updates, or a giant screen especially when my phone does all the navigation I need. Then I remember the first time I saw the Space X Disney characters – eyebrow raising to say the least. But nothing could possibly be as ridiculous as all this talk about Mars. Thanks LtV.

    Reply
  • August 19, 2016 at 5:50 pm
    Permalink

    yes! i mean please! keep making videos!
    and please! maybe enable comments! i mean you can’t expect people to keep coming here just to
    ask you to enable comments! i guarontee,your subscription base will improve!

    Reply
    • August 21, 2016 at 12:37 am
      Permalink

      but what is so fantastic about YouTube comments? Really I don’t see it.

      Reply
      • August 24, 2016 at 7:51 am
        Permalink

        I like coming here to watch his videos. The comment section isn’t full of random nonsense, it’s easy to sort through.

        Reply
  • August 19, 2016 at 5:10 pm
    Permalink

    All good points! As you being a former actor I know you are accurately spotting the acting tells. Even the average guy, me, sees just about nothing in this entire “production” is what they claim it to be.

    Thanks for your work!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *