it's on you to prove that they are real

I think that is our point Thinky

As 100% certainty is not probable for what we are looking to.

I cannot provide proof without sharing images from OPSEC

you have to rely on NASA words that they are real and guess what, they have lied in the past

How can you prove that photos of satelites have not been doctored, for example

In this case, that is of course standing for

Open-Source Security

Wait what? In court if someone presents evidence (no matter what it is) and someone claims it's not true, the burden of proof is on the accuser claiming it isnt true.

So if I show a picture of JFK being shot with a laser beam not a bullet and someone says that's fake, it's their job to prove it wrong.

Point is, OPSEC is as influenced by governmental influences are you yourself are.

Saying they are taking it, I could with the same conviction accuse you of the same.

Both are equally pointless statements.

@Thinky it always boils down to putting faith in what the organization said or posted the picture is truth, putting faith in something is not proof

Well for something so pointless it sure is taking up a lot of space here

Wrong

Lol

Then you succumb to the same failing

besides nasa has lied in the past, an informative source that lies once has its credibility ripped off

You out faith in your own organizations, your own circle of people.

It is something we all do, to "assume" on some basic principles.

The difference is the quantity and scope of the assumptions.

hold on, on we still talking about CGI vs non CGI?

Seems no longer to be the case.

Since you stated you were not claiming that

Instead we seem to be clarifying what is a Burden of Proof Fallacy

i should've approached this ''how is the picture taken of the satellite true'' i can agree with you. the point is that these pictures requires a lot of faith in an organization that lied/deceived people in the past

i never stated i am not claiming that, i stated that i never claimed that as you suggested i did

In a basic sense, someone makes Claim A with some rudimentary backing (like a photo, quote, or the like) person 2 makes a rebuke to Claim A with counterclaim B

It is then their burden to prove the counterclaim

Can we use pictures of amateur astronomers who arent affiliated with NASA?

my problem is that Authoritative figure A can make any extraordinary claim and make it irrefutable, since the people have no way of disproving nor provingg it there's no way it should be real and used as evidence for such but people will still use it as proof

sure we can yeah

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcRKNaNSg48bVf0jn6OnLpCA6STrtRpuk_dTGx-ZbtQseuZPEEbt

https://www.cnet.com/news/spectacular-space-station-photo-taken-from-a-back-yard/

https://images.ctfassets.net/cnu0m8re1exe/29RdtG8TOuI5UBnGaTgKW2/3b2ec5cd0a5876f0e3c39b4b68886af8/vandebergh_kh111.jpg

Most technology used by NASA is developed by universities

@Flat earth BEAST That is why Authoritative Figure A is required to have some form of backing

Be it initial photos, quotes from reports, etc.

Failing to do so means the claim can be disregarded without need for counter evidence

Actually I retract that