[macintosh-hd]

You had a long back and forth with someone else in this post where you defended obvious dishonesty on the part of this group. They presented footage where FSD literally was not engaged in an ad showing its flaws, and it doesn’t matter if the driver signed paperwork or they had other footage where it allegedly was enabled and in total working order. Dan’s credibility was done when he didn’t backtrack and try again right there.

That is brazen dishonesty, and the fact that you will not admit that means you’re a waste of time. If you feel so strongly about it, maybe you should try to replicate the results so it can come from someone who has even a shred of trustworthiness.

[Veserv]

You mean the back and forth where I demonstrated that FSD was literally engaged during tests in that round of tests demonstrating it would hit child mannequins while FSD was engaged using the raw video footage of those tests where the "reporter" then admits, upon actually bothering to view the raw video footage, that FSD did hit child mannequins while it was engaged in those test runs. That same back and forth where they are clearly moving the goalposts upon realizing their initial position that FSD was never engaged in any of those tests was dead wrong.

I am amazed that your take-away was that it was "brazen dishonesty" on part of the people who produced the raw video footage supporting their claims instead of the "reporter" who jumped the gun without bothering to check their sources and was proven wrong.

Let me spell this out for you:

The claim was that FSD would run down a child mannequin while it was engaged. The video footage presented in the report, drawn from a single round of testing, shows FSD running down a child mannequin while it was engaged. There exists additional video footage showing FSD not engaged also running down a child mannequin. That is irrelevant to the claim, supported by video evidence, that FSD would run down a child mannequin while it was engaged.

Your claim only makes sense if there was no video footage of any test in that test run where FSD ran down a child mannequin while engaged. That is clearly and demonstrably untrue as seen by the raw footage of videos from that test run included in the report. The claim that, at the time, FSD would not run down a child mannequin at the time while engaged is clearly false. Anybody claiming otherwise is a brazen liar without even a shred of trustworthiness and propagating that lie is a whistleblower smear campaign.

To elaborate more specifically on the content of the advertisement. In this context where we see that there are tests that demonstrate the truth of the underlying claim, the only valid point of contention is whether the advertisement is a accurate representation of the tests being advertised. The video content of the advertisement is not materially different than the contents of the tests, which are the actual ground truth being used as evidence, therefore the advertisement is perfectly fine on all accounts.

Care to try again? Show me a single video where the claimed manipulations are clearly visible in such a way that resulted in you having no doubt that they were manipulated. Please try not to cite the same people who made that first false claim as they do not even have a shred of trustworthiness.