(Has anyone posted this yet?)

Obligatory: I didn’t create this, I #yaRRR’ed 🏴‍☠️ it from the other site

  • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 day ago

    It’s like trying to disprove Bigfoot. Someone comes to you with a shaky, out of focus video with no audio, time, date, or precise location.

    I can’t prove it’s not bigfoot. That doesn’t mean I think it is Bigfoot, or that you should think so.

    If you have good video and know where it was shot from and can cross-reference that with aircraft trackers? Then maybe they can do a good investigation. There’s been a few of those where it turns out to pretty obviously be a helicopter, a V-22, or just a 737.

    Especially since it’s rather hard to judge scale on airborne things some distance away.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I can’t prove it’s not bigfoot.

      I mean, its trivial to prove something isn’t Bigfoot on the grounds that Bigfoot Isn’t Real. That’s just Hitchens’s Razor. The burden of proof is on the person presenting the claim, not the one refuting it.

      Especially since it’s rather hard to judge scale on airborne things some distance away.

      A bunch of the sightings have literally just been stars in the night sky.

      • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        I mean, its trivial to prove something isn’t Bigfoot on the grounds that Bigfoot Isn’t Real. That’s just Hitchens’s Razor. The burden of proof is on the person presenting the claim, not the one refuting it.

        Shifting the burden of proof doesn’t disprove the claim. You can look at a picture and call someone an idiot for believing it’s bigfoot/a drone, but still not be able to swear that there is no way it could possibly be a drone.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Shifting the burden of proof doesn’t disprove the claim.

          It eliminates the concern. NASA isn’t setting it’s launch schedule against the possibility of a vessel colliding with Russell’s Tea Pot, because there’s simply no evidence it exists.

          You can look at a picture and call someone an idiot for believing it’s bigfoot/a drone

          If I hand you a blank piece of paper and tell you it’s a photograph of a Yeti, you aren’t obligated to prove I’m wrong.

          • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            13 hours ago

            Exactly. The military isn’t obligated to look at every single picture and tell you that it’s not a drone. But if they don’t do that, they can’t say “we have looked at every single picture and confirmed there are no suspicious drones”.

            The military is rightly refusing to prove a negative.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              The military is rightly refusing to prove a negative.

              Unfortunately, a lot of camera hogs and attention seekers are playing up the “Well but maybe it was aliens who can truly say? I just think its weird and our department needs another billion dollars to investigate” angle in front of Congress. Then they do the podcast/C-list national news circuit and whisper “It’s definitely aliens” into the mic for the most gullible of the rubes.