this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
480 points (97.1% liked)

memes

10629 readers
1998 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
480
New Jersey Drone Sightings Guide (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

(Has anyone posted this yet?)

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 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.