4 ms·
So your argument was: > It was not engaged. But since that is now clearly false using the evidence you yourself presented you have transitioned to: "The raw
by Veserv 1y ago
So your argument was:
> It was not engaged.
But since that is now clearly false using the evidence you yourself presented you have transitioned to:
"The raw video footage clearly demonstrates the claim of FSD colliding with the child under the stated conditions, but the written report had incorrectly documented what occurred in the video footage, but which has since been corrected. That disproves the raw video footage of the claim."
Talk about moving the goalposts. Care to retract your false statement that it was not engaged?
- josephcsible 1y agoIt's clear from the still image in the article that FSD really was not engaged in the original video. It's not just a mistake in the written report. The video provided later in the update must be from a later run of the test. And in particular, since O'Dowd got caught lying about the original, I no longer trust him, so I don't trust that the second test wasn't tampered with in a less-detectable way (e.g., messing with the car's sensors, or doctoring the new uploaded video). Especially because of the point you keep not addressing: nobody else seems to be able to reproduce this problem.
- Veserv 1y agoWow, still just making up random nonsense instead of taking responsibility for your false statements. The video footage in the report was not a "update". That is the original video footage of the tests that was released at the same time as the report that Fred had, but chose not to, access before making false claims; just like you had that opportunity right now. The error in the written report that Fred was referencing is that the contents of Table 1 recorded a slightly higher "Speed at Impact" than what actually occurred. The value originally reported was most likely the speed at disengagement, but has since been rectified to report the correct number. In no way shape or form does that invalidate the video footage unless you are a mindless Tesla drone spreading the smear. The video you claim is the "original" was a TV advertisement, not a test. As you might be aware, advertisements are meant to be evocative, not precisely accurate and usually contain edited video footage. Or do you also believe that Red Bull actually gives you wings? Accuracy is for the tests, raw footage, and report that were released simultaneously and which clearly demonstrate the stated claims. For that matter, if the video were clearly false and defamatory as you claim, why has Tesla not followed up on their Cease and Desist letter from 2 years ago [1]? Tesla sent a letter claiming the videos were false and defamatory using Fred's article as evidence and would sue to get them taken down. Then Fred posted that he realized FSD was engaged and it has been crickets from Tesla since then. I think you should trust Tesla's lawyers here and stop digging your hole. I am done here. If you have any self-respect, retract your false statements and rethink your position instead of performing charity for the richest person in the world by smearing whistleblowers. [1] https://dawnproject.com/dan-odowds-response-to-teslas-cease-and-desist-letter/ https://dawnproject.com/dan-odowds-response-to-teslas-cease-...
- josephcsible 1y agoI still ask: why does this problem not happen for anyone but Dan O'Dowd? Plenty of other people have tested it.