I considered hard weather this really belongs in Technology, but came to the conclusion that exposing a scammer that is considered a tech genius, does belong here. Because debunking a technology company is as important as showing it, when it's considered valid.
That said, I believe most people here are already aware that Musk is not to be trusted blindly. But just how bad it really is, may be news to some.
Remember Thunderf00t may open himself to lawsuits making these claims publicly. But I'm sure he considered that first, and came to the conclusion, that everything he says, he can document is true. I've run into his material from time to time already from about 15 years ago, and he is 100% a VERY smart guy, that knows what he is talking about.
Except about SpaceX, I'm not going to dig though the threads right now, but he's been hilariously wrong about SpaceX in the past. Though not as bad as common sense skeptic though if I'm remembering right.
How is he wrong about SpaceX? As far as I can tell, he is spot on. If a NASA program had as many failures as SpaceX has, it would be closed down. And the economic claims Musk make for SpaceX are insane.
I think it was the comparisons to other launch vehicles that were very apples to oranges. But as I said, I'd rather not dig through the Reddit threads to find them. I think they were on SpaceX lounge a few years ago? Common sense skeptic commented, but I don't think thunderfoot did.
Are you aware he is a chemist, and has worked in areas related. Not 1 in a thousand understand as well as he how a rocket actually works.
So my guess is that almost everybody else, myself included, who speak on those issues know less.
Have you seen actual experts contradict what he said?
Yeah I know he's a chemist. I'm an engineer. Some of the other people in the thread were engineers too. Anyway, it was just Wikipedia level incorrect information sort of stuff more than deduction of chemistry.
OK, then you know more than me, I'm just not aware of the apples to oranges comparison you mention. And his recent claims he posed on YouTube are spot on IMO.
I admit already that first point about 10% being more like 20% doesn't look good. I viewed the video, and it seems he may have done that on purpose to facilitate a kind of wordplay between 10 times and 10%, which would be dishonest.
Haven't got time to view the rest now, but you made your point.