(Has anyone posted this yet?)
Obligatory: I didn't create this, I #yaRRR'ed 🏴☠️ it from the other site
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Crazy how you can have a budget in the trillions for national security but "Idk, maybe their not unfriendly? We need another six months to look into it" is the best our top military brass can come up with.
Really makes you think about how easy 9/11 was to pull off.
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.
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.