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.
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.