(Has anyone posted this yet?)

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

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 days 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
      ·
      4 days 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
        ·
        3 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.