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