this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
503 points (97.2% liked)

memes

10666 readers
2553 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]
503
New Jersey Drone Sightings Guide (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 5 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
55 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 5 days 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 4 days 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 4 days 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 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days 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.